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 hch@lst.de
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.
HonzaYes, 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