On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:10:20AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:

On 7/14/19 11:56 PM, Bharath Vedartham wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 04:33:42PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

On 7/14/19 12:08 PM, Bharath Vedartham wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

1. Pull down https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commits/gup_dma_core
and find missing conversions: look for any additional missing 
get_user_pages/put_page conversions. You've already found a couple missing 
ones. I haven't re-run a search in a long time, so there's probably even more.
	a) And find more, after I rebase to 5.3-rc1: people probably are adding
	get_user_pages() calls as we speak. :)

Shouldn't this be documented then? I don't see any docs for using
put_user_page*() in v5.2.1 in the memory management API section?

Yes, it needs documentation. My first try (which is still in the above git
repo) was reviewed and found badly wanting, so I'm going to rewrite it. Meanwhile,
I agree that an interim note would be helpful, let me put something together.

[...]

quoted

quoted

    https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commits/gup_dma_core

    a) gets rebased often, and

    b) has a bunch of commits (iov_iter and related) that conflict
       with the latest linux.git,

    c) has some bugs in the bio area, that I'm fixing, so I don't trust
       that's it's safely runnable, for a few more days.

I assume your repo contains only work related to fixing gup issues and
not the main repo for gup development? i.e where gup changes are merged?

Correct, this is just a private tree, not a maintainer tree. But I'll try to
keep the gup_dma_core branch something that is usable by others, during the
transition over to put_user_page(), because the page-tracking patches are the
main way to test any put_user_page() conversions.

As Ira said, we're using linux-mm as the real (maintainer) tree.

Thanks for the info! 

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA