Message-id: <1376387202.31048.2.camel@AMDC1943>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Pin page control subsystem
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        lliubbo@gmail.com, aquini@redhat.com, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:46:42 +0200
In-reply-to: <1376377502-28207-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
References: <1376377502-28207-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
MIME-version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 893
Lines: 22

Hi Minchan,

On wto, 2013-08-13 at 16:04 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> patch 2 introduce pinpage control
> subsystem. So, subsystems want to control pinpage should implement own
> pinpage_xxx functions because each subsystem would have other character
> so what kinds of data structure for managing pinpage information depends
> on them. Otherwise, they can use general functions defined in pinpage
> subsystem. patch 3 hacks migration.c so that migration is
> aware of pinpage now and migrate them with pinpage subsystem.

I wonder why don't we use page->mapping and a_ops? Is there any
disadvantage of such mapping/a_ops?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/