Re: [PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-05-27 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote: > From: John Hubbard > > For infiniband code that retains pages via get_user_pages*(), > release those pages via the new put_user_page(), or > put_user_pages*(), instead of put_page() > > This is a tiny part of the second

Re: [PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-05-27 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 04:06:31AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote: > > For infiniband code that retains pages via get_user_pages*(), > > release those pages via the new put_user_page(), or > > put_user_pages*(), instead of

Re: [PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-05-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 04:06:31AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I thought we agreed at LSFMM that the future is a new get_user_bvec() > / put_user_bvec(). This is largely going to touch the same places as > step 2 in your list above. Is it worth doing step 2? > > One of the advantages of

Re: [PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-05-26 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote: > For infiniband code that retains pages via get_user_pages*(), > release those pages via the new put_user_page(), or > put_user_pages*(), instead of put_page() I have no objection to this particular patch, but ... > This is

[PATCH v2] infiniband/mm: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

2019-05-24 Thread john . hubbard
From: John Hubbard For infiniband code that retains pages via get_user_pages*(), release those pages via the new put_user_page(), or put_user_pages*(), instead of put_page() This is a tiny part of the second step of fixing the problem described in [1]. The steps are: 1) Provide