From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A71C43215 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6D72073F for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727544AbfKVLPJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:15:09 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34110 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729023AbfKVLPI (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 06:15:08 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21586B2F6; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4FA541E484C; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:15:02 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: John Hubbard Cc: Jan Kara , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Alex Williamson , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= , Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Daniel Vetter , Dave Chinner , David Airlie , "David S . Miller" , Ira Weiny , Jason Gunthorpe , Jens Axboe , Jonathan Corbet , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Magnus Karlsson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Michael Ellerman , Michal Hocko , Mike Kravetz , Paul Mackerras , Shuah Khan , Vlastimil Babka , bpf@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/24] mm/gup: factor out duplicate code from four routines Message-ID: <20191122111502.GC26721@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20191121071354.456618-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20191121071354.456618-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20191121080356.GA24784@lst.de> <852f6c27-8b65-547b-89e0-e8f32a4d17b9@nvidia.com> <20191121095411.GC18190@quack2.suse.cz> <9d0846af-2c4f-7cda-dfcb-1f642943afea@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9d0846af-2c4f-7cda-dfcb-1f642943afea@nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Thu 21-11-19 18:54:02, John Hubbard wrote: > On 11/21/19 1:54 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 21-11-19 00:29:59, John Hubbard wrote: > > > > > > > > Otherwise this looks fine and might be a worthwhile cleanup to feed > > > > Andrew for 5.5 independent of the gut of the changes. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reviews! Say, it sounds like your view here is that this > > > series should be targeted at 5.6 (not 5.5), is that what you have in mind? > > > And get the preparatory patches (1-9, and maybe even 10-16) into 5.5? > > > > One more note :) If you are going to push pin_user_pages() interfaces > > (which I'm fine with), it would probably make sense to push also the > > put_user_pages() -> unpin_user_pages() renaming so that that inconsistency > > in naming does not exist in the released upstream kernel. > > > > Honza > > Yes, that's what this patch series does. But I'm not sure if "push" here > means, "push out: defer to 5.6", "push (now) into 5.5", or "advocate for"? I meant to include the patch in the "for 5.5" batch. > I will note that it's not going to be easy to rename in one step, now > that this is being split up. Because various put_user_pages()-based items > are going into 5.5 via different maintainer trees now. Probably I'd need > to introduce unpin_user_page() alongside put_user_page()...thoughts? Yes, I understand that moving that patch from the end of the series would cause fair amount of conflicts. I was hoping that you could generate the patch with sed/Coccinelle and then rebasing what remains for 5.6 on top of that patch should not be that painful so overall it should not be that much work. But I may be wrong so if it proves to be too tedious, let's just postpone the renaming to 5.6. I don't find having both unpin_user_page() and put_user_page() a better alternative to current state. Thanks! Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR