On Thu 21-11-19 18:54:02, John Hubbard wrote:

On 11/21/19 1:54 AM, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Thu 21-11-19 00:29:59, John Hubbard wrote:

quoted

quoted

Otherwise this looks fine and might be a worthwhile cleanup to feed
Andrew for 5.5 independent of the gut of the changes.

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Thanks for the reviews! Say, it sounds like your view here is that this
series should be targeted at 5.6 (not 5.5), is that what you have in mind?
And get the preparatory patches (1-9, and maybe even 10-16) into 5.5?

One more note :) If you are going to push pin_user_pages() interfaces
(which I'm fine with), it would probably make sense to push also the
put_user_pages() -> unpin_user_pages() renaming so that that inconsistency
in naming does not exist in the released upstream kernel.

								Honza

Yes, that's what this patch series does. But I'm not sure if "push" here
means, "push out: defer to 5.6", "push (now) into 5.5", or "advocate for"?

I meant to include the patch in the "for 5.5" batch.

I will note that it's not going to be easy to rename in one step, now
that this is being split up. Because various put_user_pages()-based items
are going into 5.5 via different maintainer trees now. Probably I'd need
to introduce unpin_user_page() alongside put_user_page()...thoughts?

Yes, I understand that moving that patch from the end of the series would
cause fair amount of conflicts. I was hoping that you could generate the
patch with sed/Coccinelle and then rebasing what remains for 5.6 on top of
that patch should not be that painful so overall it should not be that much
work. But I may be wrong so if it proves to be too tedious, let's just
postpone the renaming to 5.6. I don't find having both unpin_user_page()
and put_user_page() a better alternative to current state. Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR