On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:54:25PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > @@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ long get_user_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned 
> > long nr_pages,
> >                         int write, int force, struct page **pages,
> >                         struct vm_area_struct **vmas);
> >  long get_user_pages_locked(unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> > -               int write, int force, struct page **pages, int *locked);
> > +               unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages, int *locked);
> Hum, the prototype is inconsistent with e.g. __get_user_pages_unlocked()
> where gup_flags come after **pages argument. Actually it makes more sense
> to have it before **pages so that input arguments come first and output
> arguments second but I don't care that much. But it definitely should be
> consistent...

It was difficult to decide quite how to arrange parameters as there was
inconsitency with regards to parameter ordering already - for example
__get_user_pages() places its flags argument before pages whereas, as you note,
__get_user_pages_unlocked() puts them afterwards.

I ended up compromising by trying to match the existing ordering of the function
as much as I could by replacing write, force pairs with gup_flags in the same
location (with the exception of get_user_pages_unlocked() which I felt should
match __get_user_pages_unlocked() in signature) or if there was already a
gup_flags parameter as in the case of __get_user_pages_unlocked() I simply
removed the write, force pair and left the flags as the last parameter.

I am happy to rearrange parameters as needed, however I am not sure if it'd be
worthwhile for me to do so (I am keen to try to avoid adding too much noise here

If we were to rearrange parameters for consistency I'd suggest adjusting
__get_user_pages_unlocked() to put gup_flags before pages and do the same with
get_user_pages_unlocked(), let me know what you think.
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to