On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:30:38PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 07/08/2019 15:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>> Has anyone looked at turning the interface ins
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:40 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I'm not an all that huge fan of super magic macro loops. But in this
> case I don't see how it could even work, as we get special callbacks
> for huge pages and holes, and people are trying to add a few more ops
> as well.
Yeah, in thi
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 07/08/2019 15:56, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:30:38PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> >> On 07/08/2019 15:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>
On 07/08/2019 15:56, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:30:38PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 07/08/2019 15:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
On 07/08/2019 15:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> Has anyone looked at turning the interface inside-out? ie something like:
>>>
>>> struct mm_walk_state state =
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:40:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Has anyone looked at turning the interface inside-out? ie something like:
> >
> > struct mm_walk_state state = { .mm = mm, .start = start, .end = end, };
>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Has anyone looked at turning the interface inside-out? ie something like:
>
> struct mm_walk_state state = { .mm = mm, .start = start, .end = end, };
>
> for_each_page_range(&state, page) {
> ... do somet
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:50:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In fact, I do note that a lot of the users don't actually use the
> "void *private" argument at all - they just want the walker - and just
> pass in a NULL private pointer. So we have things like this:
>
> > + if (walk_page
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:50:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In fact, I do note that a lot of the users don't actually use the
> "void *private" argument at all - they just want the walker - and just
> pass in a NULL private pointer. So we have things like this:
>
> > + if (walk_page_ra
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:38 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Seems like no one took this up. Below is a version which I think is
> slightly better by also moving the mm_walk structure initialization
> into the helpers, with an outcome of just a handful of added lines.
Ack. Agreed, I think that's
[adding the real linux-mm list now]
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:38:31AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:17:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The attached patch does add more lines than it removes, but in most
> > cases it's actually a clear improvement.
>
> Seems l
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:17:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The attached patch does add more lines than it removes, but in most
> cases it's actually a clear improvement.
Seems like no one took this up. Below is a version which I think is
slightly better by also moving the mm_walk structure
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:19:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Linus, do you have any advice on how best to handle sharing mm
> > patches? The hmm.git was mildly painful as it sits between quilt on
> > the -mm side and what seems like 'a world of interesting git things'
> > on the DRM side (bu
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:07 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> The mm_walk struct is indeed a bit similar, and is in fact a bit
> problematic exactly because it mixes function pointers with non-const
> data.
This made me look at how nasty that would be to fix.
Not too bad.
The attached patch does ad
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:36 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
wrote:
>
> - I've never had any kernel code more reviewed than this.
Hmm. It may have been reviewed, but that wasn't visible in the commits
themselves, so when I look at the pull request, I don't see that.
> - The combined callback / arg
Hi, All.
On 7/15/19 8:00 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
I'm not pulling this. Why did you merge it into your tree, when
apparently you were aware of how questionable it is judging by the drm
pull request.
Looking at some of the fallout, I also
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:17 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> About the only thing I could concretely suggest for working with -mm
> is if there was some way the -mm quilt patches could participate in
> 'git merge' resolution at your level.
Andrew did make noises about having multiple git branches.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:16:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Ugh, I have three different threads about the drm pull because of
> the subject / html confusion. So now I'm replying in separate threads
> and I'm hoping the people involved have better threading than gmail
> does ;/ ]
>
> On Mon
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:16 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:29 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > The 'hmm' tree is something I ran to try and help workflow issues like
> > this, as it could be merged to DRM as a topic branch - maybe consider
> > this flow in future?
> >
>
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:29 AM Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> Not that I want to defend that code, but the mm patch that conflicts
> already shows that removing the token is fine as nobody needs or
> requires it. So the fixup patch in my tree was just a bridge to that patch,
> which reduces conflicts. R
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 04:00, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not pulling this. Why did you merge it into your tree, when
> > apparently you were aware of how questionable it is judging by the drm
> > pull request.
>
> Looking at some
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 03:38, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:08 AM Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm not
> > sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, but I'm going with it
> > for now until I get push back).
>
>
[ Ugh, I have three different threads about the drm pull because of
the subject / html confusion. So now I'm replying in separate threads
and I'm hoping the people involved have better threading than gmail
does ;/ ]
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:29 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> The 'hmm' tree is some
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:57 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > > So, I'll put it on a topic and send you two a note next week to decide
> > > if you want to merge it or not. I'm really unclear how nouveau's and
> > > AMD's patchflow
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I'm not pulling this. Why did you merge it into your tree, when
> apparently you were aware of how questionable it is judging by the drm
> pull request.
Looking at some of the fallout, I also see that you then added that
"adjust apply_to_
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > So, I'll put it on a topic and send you two a note next week to decide
> > if you want to merge it or not. I'm really unclear how nouveau's and
> > AMD's patchflow works..
>
> DRM is 2-level for pretty much everything. First it la
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:19:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > > Linus, do you have any advice on how best to handle sharing mm
> > > patches? The hmm.git was mildly painful as it sits between quilt on
> > > the -mm side and what see
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:08 AM Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm not
> sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, but I'm going with it
> for now until I get push back).
Yeah, this is the kind of completely unacceptable stuff that I was
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:29 PM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> [urk, html email.. forgive the mess]
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> > VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm
> > not sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, b
Hi Jason,
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:29:28 + Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> > going with it for now until I get push back). They conflicted
> > with one of the mm cleanups in the hmm tree, I've pushed a
> > patch to the
[urk, html email.. forgive the mess]
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> VMware had some mm helpers go in via my tree (looking back I'm
> not sure Thomas really secured enough acks on these, but I'm
I saw those patches, honestly I couldn't entirely understand
31 matches
Mail list logo
