From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 04:28:01 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] lockless get_user_pages Message-ID: <20080527022801.GB21578@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080525145227.GC25747@wotan.suse.de> <8763t1w1ko.fsf@saeurebad.de> <20080527095519.4676.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080527095519.4676.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , shaggy@austin.ibm.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, apw@shadowen.org List-ID: On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:57:11AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Introduce a new "fast_gup" (for want of a better name right now) > > > > Perhaps, > > > > * get_address_space > > * get_address_mappings > > * get_mapped_pages > > * get_page_mappings > > > > Or s@get_@ref_@? > > Why get_user_pages_lockless() is wrong? > or get_my_pages() is better? > (because this method assume task is current task) Aw, nobody likes fast_gup? ;) Technically get_user_pages_lockless is wrong: the implementation may not be lockless so one cannot assume it will not take mmap sem and ptls. But I do like to make it clear that it is related to get_user_pages. get_current_user_pages(), maybe? Hmm, that's harder to grep for both then I guess. get_user_pages_current? -- 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