Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:01:05 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, bskeggs@redhat.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, jhubbard@nvidia.com,
        rcampbell@nvidia.com, jglisse@redhat.com, daniel@ffwll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access
Message-ID: <20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca>
References: <20210219020750.16444-1-apopple@nvidia.com>
 <20210219020750.16444-2-apopple@nvidia.com>
 <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 866a0fa104c4..5d28ff6d4d80 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct hmm_range {
> >   */
> >  int hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range);
> >  
> > +int hmm_exclusive_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > +			unsigned long end, struct page **pages);
> > +vm_fault_t hmm_remove_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf);
> 
> Can we avoid the hmm naming for new code (we should probably also kill
> it off for the existing code)?

Yes please, I'd prefer it if hmm.c was just the special page walker
and not a grab bag of unrelated things

Is there is a more natural place to put this in the mm for this idea?

Jason