On Mon 06-03-17 11:40:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, L
On Fri 03-03-17 09:37:55, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
> >> apparentl
es to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging,
> I really don't want to mess with the ABI.
Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged
normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were
addressed?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Wed 19-10-16 10:23:55, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
> > flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
> > current->mm
>
>
On Wed 19-10-16 09:49:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it i
On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> > me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
> > mm !=
would require
FOLL_FORCE for access_remote_vm? I mean FOLL_FORCE is a really
non-trivial thing. It doesn't obey vma permissions so we should really
minimize its usage. Do all of those users really need FOLL_FORCE?
Anyway I would rather see the flag explicit and used at more places than
hidden behi
On Wed 19-10-16 10:06:46, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:52:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > yes this is the desirable and expected behavior.
> >
> > > wonder if this is desirable behaviour or whether this ought to be limited
> > > to
>
On Wed 19-10-16 09:40:45, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:13:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:59:03, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:18, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > This patch removes the write par
_FORCE users was always a nightmare
and the flag behavior is really subtle so we should better be explicit
about it. I haven't gone through each patch separately but rather
applied the whole series and checked the resulting diff. This all seems
OK to me and feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho
10 matches
Mail list logo
