From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756424AbdJJVYA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:24:00 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34490 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753673AbdJJVX7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:23:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:23:56 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name,
        ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 19/20] x86/mm: Add speculative pagefault handling
Message-Id: <20171010142356.b33f8a8fee3427fbdf0708e3@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1507543672-25821-20-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1507543672-25821-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <1507543672-25821-20-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon,  9 Oct 2017 12:07:51 +0200 Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> +/*
> + * Advertise that we call the Speculative Page Fault handler.
> + */
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> +#define __HAVE_ARCH_CALL_SPF
> +#endif

Here's where I mess up your life ;)

It would be more idiomatic to define this in arch/XXX/Kconfig:

config SPF
	def_bool y if SMP

then use CONFIG_SPF everywhere.

Also, it would be better if CONFIG_SPF were defined at the start of the
patch series rather than the end, so that as the patches add new code,
that code is actually compilable.  For bisection purposes.  I can
understand if this is too much work and effort - we can live with
things the way they are now.

This patchset is a ton of new code in very sensitive areas and seems to
have received little review and test.  I can do a
merge-and-see-what-happens but it would be quite a risk to send all
this upstream based only on my sketchy review and linux-next runtime
testing.  Can we bribe someone?