Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] userfaultfd: update documentation to describe minor fault handling

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 2/4/21 1:04 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:57 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Axel-
>>
>> one typo found:
>>
>> On 2/4/21 10:34 AM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
>>> Reword / reorganize things a little bit into "lists", so new features /
>>> modes / ioctls can sort of just be appended.
>>
>> Good plan.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst | 107 ++++++++++++-------
>>>  1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst
>>> index 65eefa66c0ba..cfd3daf59d0e 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> -
>>> -Once the ``userfaultfd`` has been enabled the ``UFFDIO_REGISTER`` ioctl should
>>> -be invoked (if present in the returned ``uffdio_api.ioctls`` bitmask) to
>>> -register a memory range in the ``userfaultfd`` by setting the
>>> +events, except page fault notifications, may be generated:
>>> +
>>> +- The ``UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_*`` flags indicate that various other events
>>> +  other than page faults are supported. These events are described in more
>>> +  detail below in the `Non-cooperative userfaultfd`_ section.
>>> +
>>> +- ``UFFD_FEATURE_MISSING_HUGETLBFS`` and ``UFFD_FEATURE_MISSING_SHMEM``
>>> +  indicate that the kernel supports ``UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MISSING``
>>> +  registrations for hugetlbfs and shared memory (covering all shmem APIs,
>>> +  i.e. tmpfs, ``IPCSHM``, ``/dev/zero``, ``MAP_SHARED``, ``memfd_create``,
>>> +  etc) virtual memory areas, respectively.
>>> +
>>> +- ``UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_HUGETLBFS`` indicates that the kernel supports
>>> +  ``UFFDIO_REGISTER_MODE_MINOR`` registration for hugetlbfs virtual memory
>>> +  areas.
>>> +
>>> +The userland application should set the feature flags it intends to use
>>
>> (ah, userspace has moved to userland temporarily. :)
> 
> For better or worse, other parts of the document I'm not touching also
> use this wording. Maybe we should s/userland/userspace/g, but perhaps
> better done as a separate commit to keep this diff focused?
> Anecdotally, the use of "userland" doesn't seem to be completely
> unprecedented (e.g. grep -r "userland" | wc -l yields 566 matches in
> the kernel tree).
> 
> I don't have strong feelings, and I was amused by picturing some
> Shire-esque countryside with a friendly sign that reads: ~userland
> welcomes you~. :)

I'm OK with not changing it. Up to you.

-- 
~Randy