On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:27:09 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in a "Case 1" scenario
> (Direct IO), using the categorization from [1]. That means that it's
> time to convert the get_user_pages*() + put_page() calls to
> pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages()
> On 26. May 2020, at 21.27, John Hubbard wrote:
>
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in a "Case 1" scenario
> (Direct IO), using the categorization from [1]. That means that it's
> time to convert the get_user_pages*() + put_page() calls to
> pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages()
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in a "Case 1" scenario (Direct
> IO), using the categorization from [1]. That means that it's time to
> convert the get_user_pages*() + put_page() calls to pin_user_pages*()
> + unpin_user_pages() calls.
Kai: Please review.
Thanks!
--
Martin K.
John,
> For some reason, the "convert convert" subject line is really hard to
> get rid of from my scsi st patch. In this case, I'd dropped the patch
> entirely, and recreated it with the old subject line somehow. Sorry
> about that persistent typo!
>
> I'll send a v3 if necessary, to correct
For some reason, the "convert convert" subject line is really hard to get rid of
from my scsi st patch. In this case, I'd dropped the patch entirely,
and recreated it with the old subject line somehow. Sorry about that
persistent typo!
I'll send a v3 if necessary, to correct that.
thanks,
John
This code was using get_user_pages*(), in a "Case 1" scenario
(Direct IO), using the categorization from [1]. That means that it's
time to convert the get_user_pages*() + put_page() calls to
pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages() calls.
There is some helpful background in [2]: basically, this is
6 matches
Mail list logo
