Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page

[Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >   1. Introduce the vmf_* API
> >   2. Change all PF-users users to that (leaving all non-PF ones
> > untouched!) -- if this is too big, you can split this patch into
> > several patches, one per subsystem, etc.
>
> We are done with step 2. All the PF-users are converted to use
> vmf_insert_page. ( Ref - linux-next-20181005)

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?

> >
> > Otherwise, if you want to pursue Matthew's idea:
> >
> >   4. Introduce the vm_insert_range (possibly leveraging
> > vm_insert_page, or not; you have to see what is best).
> >   5. Replace those callers that can take advantage of vm_insert_range
> >   6. Remove vm_insert_page and replace callers with vm_insert_range
> > (only if it is not worth to keep vm_insert_range, again justifying it
> > *on its own merits*)
>
> Step 4 to 6, going to do it.  It is part of plan now :-)
>

Fine, but you haven't answered to the other parts of my email: you
don't explain why you choose one alternative over the others, you
simply keep changing the approach.

Cheers,
Miguel