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:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] userfaultfd/shmem: fix MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE
 behavior
In-Reply-To: <CAJHvVcgGbdeoniOzwQsc370idV5gJ5cfq8Kzu3hneBAaB+CL6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2104071542190.15034@eggly.anvils>
References: <20210401183701.1774159-1-axelrasmussen@google.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.2104062307110.14082@eggly.anvils> <CAJHvVcgGbdeoniOzwQsc370idV5gJ5cfq8Kzu3hneBAaB+CL6g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> Agreed about taking one direction or the other further.
> 
> I get the sense that Peter prefers the mcopy_atomic_install_ptes()
> version, and would thus prefer to just expose that and let
> shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() use it.
> 
> But, I get the sense that you (Hugh) slightly prefer the other way -
> just letting shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() deal with both the VM_SHARED and
> !VM_SHARED cases.

No, either direction seems plausible to me: start from whichever
end you prefer.

> 
> I was planning to write "I prefer option X because (reasons), and
> objections?" but I'm realizing that it isn't really clear to me which
> route would end up being cleaner. I think I have to just pick one,
> write it out, and see where I end up. If it ends up gross, I don't
> mind backtracking and taking the other route. :) To that end, I'll
> proceed by having shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() call the new
> mcopy_atomic_install_ptes() helper, and see how it looks (unless there
> are objections).

I am pleased to read that: it's exactly how I would approach it -
so it must be right :-)

Hugh