From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge_fault Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:24:48 -0800 Message-ID: References: <148615748258.43180.1690152053774975329.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com> <20170206143648.GA461@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Dave Jiang , Matthew Wilcox , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Dave Hansen , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , linux-ext4 , Vlastimil Babka To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170206143648.GA461@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:31:22PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >> Since the introduction of FAULT_FLAG_SIZE to the vm_fault flag, it has >> been somewhat painful with getting the flags set and removed at the >> correct locations. More than one kernel oops was introduced due to >> difficulties of getting the placement correctly. Removing the flag >> values and introducing an input parameter to huge_fault that indicates >> the size of the page entry. This makes the code easier to trace and >> should avoid the issues we see with the fault flags where removal of the >> flag was necessary in the fallback paths. > > Why is this not in struct vm_fault? Because this is easier to read and harder to get wrong. Same arguments as getting rid of struct blk_dax_ctl. > Also can be use this opportunity > to fold ->huge_fault into ->fault? Hmm, yes, just need a scheme to not attempt huge_faults on pte-only handlers. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org