Re: [RFC V2] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 09:19:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Anshuman Khandual [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures
duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a
single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place.
kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault()
need not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can
now contain upto an 'unsigned int' accommodating all possible platforms.

...

You've changed several of the architectures from something like above,
where it disables preemption around the call into the below:


Which skips everything if we're preemptible. Is that an equivalent
change? If so can you please explain why in more detail.

See the discussion in v1 of this patch, which you were cc'd on.

I agree the description here completely fails to mention why the change.
It should mention commit a980c0ef9f6d8c.

Also why not have it return bool?

cheers