On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 01:03:06PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 03:18:46PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:35:38AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 02:27:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > > > > It's not only remap that is a concern here, people do all kinds of weird > > > > and wonderful things in .mmap(), sometimes in combination with remap. > > > > > > So it should really not be split this way, complete is a badly name > > > > I don't understand, you think we can avoid splitting this in two? If so, I > > disagree. > > I'm saying to the greatest extent possible complete should only > populate PTEs. > > We should refrain from trying to use it for other things, because it > shouldn't need to be there. OK that sounds sensible, I will refactor to try to do only this in the mmap_complete hook as far as is possible and see if I can use a generic function also. > > > > The only example in this series didn't actually need to hold the lock. > > > > There's ~250 more mmap callbacks to work through. Do you provide a guarantee > > that: > > I'd be happy if only a small few need something weird and everything > else was aligned. Ack! > > Jason Cheers, Lorenzo
