Re: [patch 3/3] mm: fault handler to replace nopage and populate

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

> - So is the plan here to migrate all code over to using
>   vm_operations.fault() and to finally remove vm_operations.nopage and
>   .nopfn?  If so, that'd be nice.

Agreed. That would also allow to pass down knowledge of wether we can be
interruptible or not (coming from userland or not). Useful in a few case
when dealing with strange hw mappings.

Now, fault() still returns a struct page and thus doesn't quite fix the
problem I'm exposing in my "User switchable HW mappings & cie" mail I
posted today in which case we need to either duplicate the truncate
logic in no_pfn() or get rid of no_pfn() and set the PTE from the fault
handler . I tend to prefer the later provided that it's strictly limited
for mappings that do not have a struct page though.
 
> - As you know, there is a case for constructing that `struct fault_data'
>   all the way up in do_no_page(): so we can pass data back, asking
>   do_no_page() to rerun the fault if we dropped mmap_sem.
> 
> - No useful opinion on the substance of this patch, sorry.  It's Saturday ;)
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/