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:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:20 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, ajd@linux.ibm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, fbarrat@linux.ibm.com,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev, jhubbard@nvidia.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        nicolinc@nvidia.com, npiggin@gmail.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        seanjc@google.com, will@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm_notifiers: Rename invalidate_range notifier
Message-Id: <20230718113620.fb29217344238307c3be76d7@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZLbSeO+XjSx1W795@ziepe.ca>
References: <cover.b4454f7f3d0afbfe1965e8026823cd50a42954b4.1689666760.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
        <c0daf0870f7220bbf815713463aff86970a5d0fa.1689666760.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
        <ZLbSeO+XjSx1W795@ziepe.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:57:12 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 05:56:15PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > index b466172..48c81b9 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> > @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static inline void tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> >  		return;
> >  
> >  	tlb_flush(tlb);
> > -	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> > +	mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> >  	__tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> 
> Does this compile? I don't see
> "mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs" ?

Seems this call gets deleted later in the series.

> But I think the approach in this series looks fine, it is so much
> cleaner after we remove all the cruft in patch 4, just look at the
> diffstat..

I'll push this into -next if it compiles OK for me, but yes, a redo is
desirable please.