From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64586B004F for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: handle_mm_fault() calling convention cleanup.. From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20090706073148.GJ2714@wotan.suse.de> References: <1246664107.7551.11.camel@pasglop> <1246741718.7551.22.camel@pasglop> <20090706073148.GJ2714@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:56:16 +1000 Message-Id: <1246877776.22625.39.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Wu Fengguang , Ingo Molnar List-ID: On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:31 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > I have no problems with that. I'd always intended to have flags > go further up the call chain like Linus did (since we'd discussed > perhaps making faults interruptible and requiring an extra flag > to distinguish get_user_pages callers that were not interruptible). > > So yes adding more flags to improve code or make things simpler > is fine by me :) > That's before you see my evil plan of bringing the flags all the way down to set_pte_at() :-) Cheers, Ben. -- 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