Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/34] drm/i915: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-08-09 Thread John Hubbard
On 8/2/19 11:48 AM, John Hubbard wrote: > On 8/2/19 2:19 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: >> Quoting john.hubb...@gmail.com (2019-08-02 05:19:37) >>> From: John Hubbard ... > In order to deal with the merge problem, I'll drop this patch from my series, > and I'd recommend that the drm-intel-next take

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/34] drm/i915: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-08-09 Thread john . hubbard
From: John Hubbard For pages that were retained via get_user_pages*(), release those pages via the new put_user_page*() routines, instead of via put_page() or release_pages(). This is part a tree-wide conversion, as described in commit fc1d8e7cca2d ("mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/34] drm/i915: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-08-09 Thread John Hubbard
On 8/2/19 2:19 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: Quoting john.hubb...@gmail.com (2019-08-02 05:19:37) From: John Hubbard For pages that were retained via get_user_pages*(), release those pages via the new put_user_page*() routines, instead of via put_page() or release_pages(). This is part a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/34] drm/i915: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-08-02 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
Quoting john.hubb...@gmail.com (2019-08-02 05:19:37) > From: John Hubbard > > For pages that were retained via get_user_pages*(), release those pages > via the new put_user_page*() routines, instead of via put_page() or > release_pages(). > > This is part a tree-wide conversion, as described in