From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-lj1-f197.google.com (mail-lj1-f197.google.com [209.85.208.197])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DDE6B000D
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-f197.google.com with SMTP id z16-v6so489341ljh.5
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id q22-v6sor388137lfa.49.2018.10.23.05.33.55
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANiq72mkTP_m20vqei-cpN+ypQ_gU472qn5m68vb_4Nqj5afMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zaFc_GenhfvsD0VPfepR-jjXypj+4CgNEuHMVq1WXV+8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72kVJn7985EET067Dgj+z0dwb0x2MTUnREMWKCVU6=WnJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zZ4sPjtb5BaDfwc5tZv+vMj6ao3NJZ_3quX9AH5pCMwJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72m9u1PL9X+dPNLxgkhvttj=4ijLyM2sFex=Kws7wswKzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zYH4Aczu8AYke8AfGuMS70SJXCMn-n8X8C_Tz03gTjn8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72kRAZE9SyM4EkpaBZH03Ex0Z=4Pk2iOuc2jBDKTfKjHQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zZCCPFE3sQ3u_gjiN8wwd99nwWatk9JRsiGxbCwhi91mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72k-e_j67==VdrayqggjAd7MAfpaJS-_0=jkmh4OWynukQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zZ2yHkVcbYtK1dxr9B3K5WVYGboavjP1ibmYei0u4zFbQ@mail.gmail.com> <20181023122435.GB20085@bombadil.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181023122435.GB20085@bombadil.infradead.org>
From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:03:42 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFqt6zZp=UsSGH148=tPWLnSxC51EGdR0Vv4f5tP58MO-6OS_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, robin@protonic.nl, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, hjc@rock-chips.com, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, airlied@linux.ie, robin.murphy@arm.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, treding@nvidia.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>, tchibo@google.com, riel@redhat.com, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, ak@linux.intel.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@dominikbrodowski.net, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, cpandya@codeaurora.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:54 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:44:32PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:11 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:39 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > > > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > They are not supposed to be "steps". You did it with 70+ commits (!!)
> > > > > over the course of several months. Why a tree wasn't created, stuff
> > > > > developed there, and when done, submitted it for review?
> > > >
> > > > Because we already have a plan for entire vm_fault_t migration and
> > > > the * instruction * was to send one patch per driver.
> > >
> > > The instruction?
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed response.
> > Instruction from Matthew  Wilcox who is supervising the entire vm_fault_t
> > migration work :-)
>
> Hang on.  That was for the initial vm_fault_t conversion in which each
> step was clearly an improvement.  What you're looking at now is far
> from that.

Ok. But my understanding was, the approach of vm_insert_range comes
into discussion as part of converting vm_insert_page into vmf_insert_page
which is still part of original vm_fault_t conversion discussion.  No ?