On 2/3/21 2:00 PM, Joao Martins wrote:
...
+void unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock(struct page *page, unsigned long npages,
+ bool make_dirty)
+{
+ unsigned long index;
+ struct page *head;
+ unsigned int ntails;
+
+ for_each_compound_range(index, &page, npages, head, ntails) {
+ if (make_dirty && !PageDirty(head))
+ set_page_dirty_lock(head);
+ put_compound_head(head, ntails, FOLL_PIN);
+ }
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock);
+
Also, looking at this again while trying to verify the sg diffs in patch #4, I
noticed
that the name is tricky. Usually a "range" would not have a single struct page*
as the
argument. So in this case, perhaps a comment above the function would help,
something
approximately like this:
/*
* The "range" in the function name refers to the fact that the page may be a
* compound page. If so, then that compound page will be treated as one or more
* ranges of contiguous tail pages.
*/
...I guess. Or maybe the name is just wrong (a comment block explaining a name
is
always a bad sign). Perhaps we should rename it to something like:
unpin_user_compound_page_dirty_lock()
?
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
