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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 A7267C43461 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 22:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8358F613C8 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 22:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230149AbhEFWcF (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2021 18:32:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42210 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230428AbhEFWcF (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2021 18:32:05 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30D95C061763 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id z13so10081090lft.1 for ; Thu, 06 May 2021 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=htNAnGunm2mFYSv2XzhlQsCDD0LeBwjAb0MYMtun6cM=; b=BORPcZuE9+rrQQNFUoJnt6f4FpTDIRpdNZeTdxMdbIECzBdY5oiwCD0JpZedlSNZ+7 bix+fDrgKkNKxnNlizSFTjxEzgqSzLtT6D02CJDWAGt9oBFGQ4VHrgxc6tYB6CmAeE2+ 8YQ9a8BVm4oo8k7TJnGL+6WsOCsGhg6VQJj04= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=htNAnGunm2mFYSv2XzhlQsCDD0LeBwjAb0MYMtun6cM=; b=e1hFMN1LPx+4nr8GHLlT2HpyVXUvC3N9SetikaWzaG+abqZL4++zhADmKC/RsvM6/y oebNdgyAQhG8Kt1EwYxq9Lknyb2/4GuFmbAVtaKQjotkM3Fs3nPww8impExaMvRBY51f zsxF28rQFOUNYcSpjBuotWsagi+u/5qCfMXvO1jmgk/Y6dBzxwWINKz3lBayEb4zN6lr bWH8Jq9B095wE3GheMt/MXn9M5DxyKa9QgDg9qiI5LfMLiplDm1t7dvWeog2ePRD/4JV dBBIKm274ea66IdATzqsLfYxeAoRtvHMjbbMXVwh1Ozj2UFaC6WotEvykL4vzs+TMLGd wqdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ezsLpvmQboa6a17JeCVXXWxuXk3RPQpPGk6+XQp8azB0pxIH8 GrES3KRGky/5ZtucNSbSB/hdTQPvniFjhcRF X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/NjjytPGqrdB7ALpQ2D2UN1y3beEFQHQQ6lq6X+0v1w+skEFOdcQ7IGvC94wcmpu75nuqEQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:61c:: with SMTP id b28mr4518188lfe.140.1620340263193; Thu, 06 May 2021 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com. [209.85.167.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f18sm965402lft.98.2021.05.06.15.31.02 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 May 2021 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id t11so10003581lfl.11 for ; Thu, 06 May 2021 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1095:: with SMTP id j21mr4272160lfg.40.1620340261797; Thu, 06 May 2021 15:31:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 15:30:45 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/iomem-mmap-vs-gup To: Daniel Vetter Cc: DRI Development , LKML , Linux-MM , Linux ARM , Linux Media Mailing List , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org [ You had a really odd Reply-to on this one ] On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Anyway here's a small pull for you to ponder, now that the big ones are > all through. Well, _now_ I'm all caught up. Knock wood. Anyway, time to look at it: > Follow-up to my pull from last merge window: kvm and vfio lost their > very unsafe use of follow_pfn, this appropriately marks up the very > last user for some userptr-as-buffer use-cases in media. There was > some resistance to outright removing it, maybe we can do this in a few > releases. Hmm. So this looks mostly ok to me, although I think the change to the nommu case is pretty ridiculous. On nommu, unsafe_follow_pfn() should just be a wrapper around follow_pfn(). There's no races when you can't remap anything. No? Do the two media cases even work on nommu? Finally - did you intend fo this to be a real pull request? Because the email read to me like "think about this and tell me what you think" rather than "please pull".. And I have now fulfilled that "think about and tell me" part ;) Linus