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: <20190808154240.9384-1-hch@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190808154240.9384-1-hch@lst.de>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Aug 2019 10:50:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh3jZnD3zaYJpW276WL=N0Vgo4KGW8M2pcFymHthwf0Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cleanup the walk_page_range interface
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=C3=B6m?= <thomas@shipmail.org>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> this series is based on a patch from Linus to split the callbacks
> passed to walk_page_range and walk_page_vma into a separate structure
> that can be marked const, with various cleanups from me on top.

The whole series looks good to me. Ack.

> Note that both Thomas and Steven have series touching this area pending,
> and there are a couple consumer in flux too - the hmm tree already
> conflicts with this series, and I have potential dma changes on top of
> the consumers in Thomas and Steven's series, so we'll probably need a
> git tree similar to the hmm one to synchronize these updates.

I'd be willing to just merge this now, if that helps. The conversion
is mechanical, and my only slight worry would be that at least for my
original patch I didn't build-test the (few) non-x86
architecture-specific cases. But I did end up looking at them fairly
closely  (basically using some grep/sed scripts to see that the
conversions I did matched the same patterns). And your changes look
like obvious improvements too where any mistake would have been caught
by the compiler.

So I'm not all that worried from a functionality standpoint, and if
this will help the next merge window, I'll happily pull now.

             Linus