Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 15:42:21 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hugetlb: Prepare hugetlb_follow_page_mask() for
 FOLL_PIN
Message-ID: <ZItpnQ/lW0kzaCKG@x1n>
References: <20230613215346.1022773-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20230613215346.1022773-5-peterx@redhat.com>
 <533c32cf-9a18-1590-4d29-f076d6bd58c1@redhat.com>
 <ZInYh3cVUil9R/cf@x1n>
 <ef0f8e0e-cbce-7c7b-1b0e-c9d52ede7e0e@redhat.com>
 <ZIndN9isc4pTp2zK@x1n>
 <38574ed3-ea96-a72e-00dd-4e6204413a86@redhat.com>
 <ZInh//34yuKNuuX8@x1n>
 <20230615002525.GD38211@monkey>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230615002525.GD38211@monkey>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:25:25PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/14/23 11:51, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:47:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Right. Then just call patch #2 "Add missing write-permission check" and this
> > > patch "Support FOLL_PIN in hugetlb_follow_page_mask()" or sth. like that.
> > > 
> > > Regarding the backport, I really wonder if patch #2 is required at all,
> > > because I didn't sport any applicable FOLL_WRITE users. Maybe there were
> > > some? Hm. If it's not applicable, a single "Support FOLL_PIN in
> > > hugetlb_follow_page_mask()" patch might be cleanest.
> > 
> > Yeah, I agree.  The code is definitely needed, not the split of patches if
> > no need for a backport.  Let me merge then.
> > 
> 
> Should have read this before adding my RB to patch 2.  I assumed no
> backport.  Agree, than merging the gup_must_unshare here makes more sense.

Thanks for taking a look!

No worries, I'll make bold to just take your R-b over the merged patch when
I repost, according to your R-b in patch 2 and the comment here.  I hope
it's fine to you.

-- 
Peter Xu