Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1558366258-3808-1-git-send-email-jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
 <20190521085547.58e1650c@erd987> <CAFqt6zZA32QA-6VtaKcrEtq=qkoGLHpirSvXb5wt7-wd_-74hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72nd5i4ADU1GbEt1Dkhp-5YkC9ip-h4a0G64oN+b95wAXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72=zCD7AAE-OBzDYm5GXenoF48SdzwO1LunWSfexqBuH7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqt6zaUhPJYozmq-m_BjJTh5EUmsQoE4yZ+Ovv6F-ymns+JGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFqt6zaUhPJYozmq-m_BjJTh5EUmsQoE4yZ+Ovv6F-ymns+JGA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 21:03:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72miwcM8Jt1pFeCKs=rstbSB70wyPGPSiC7Mgf3f=Z44Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] auxdisplay/ht16k33.c: Convert to use vm_map_pages_zero()
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
Cc:     Robin van der Gracht <robin@protonic.nl>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:07 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Taking a quick look now, by the way, why does vm_map_pages_zero() (and
> > > __vm_map_pages() etc.) get a pointer to an array instead of a pointer
> > > to the first element?
>
> For this particular driver, one page is getting mapped into vma. But
> there are other
> places where a entire page array ( with more than one pages) mapped into
> vma. That's the reason to pass pointer to an array and do rest of the operations
> inside __vm_map_pages().

Ah, "pointer to array of source kernel pages" made me think the actual
`struct page`s were the ones consecutive in memory, not the pointers.
Maybe "array of page pointers" is more clear.

> > Also, in __vm_map_pages(), semantically w.r.t. to the comment,
> > shouldn't the first check test for equality too? (i.e. for vm_pgoff ==
> > num)? (even if such case fails in the second test anyway).
>
> Sorry, didn't get it. Do you mean there should be a separate check for
> *vm_pgoff == num* ?

No, that the first check should be widened. I will send a patch.

Cheers,
Miguel