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

[Miguel Ojeda]

Hi Souptick,

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:16 AM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, not sure if you saw my comments/review: if the interface is not
> > going to change, why the name change? Why can't we simply keep using
> > vm_insert_page?
>
> yes, changing the name without changing the interface is a
> bad approach and this can't be taken. As Matthew mentioned,
> "vm_insert_range() which takes an array of struct page pointers.
> That fits the majority of remaining users" would be a better approach
> to fit this use case.
>
> But yes, we can't keep vm_insert_page and vmf_insert_page together
> as it doesn't guarantee  that future drivers will not use vm_insert_page
> in #PF context ( which will generate new errno to VM_FAULT_CODE).
>

Maybe I am hard of thinking, but aren't you planning to remove
vm_insert_page with these changes? If yes, why you can't use the keep
vm_insert_page name? In other words, keep returning what the drivers
expect?

Cheers,
Miguel