[PATCH hmm 8/8] mm/hmm: add missing call to hmm_pte_need_fault in HMM_PFN_SPECIAL handling

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:53:17AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Thinking out loud a bit more:
> > 
> >  - do we really need HMM_PFN_ERROR, or is just a return value from
> >    hmm_range_fault enough?
> 
> I'm not totally clear on this. The only use for ERROR is to signal to a
> non-faulting hmm_range_fault (ie shapshot) that the page should generate a 
> device fault (ie device SIGSEGV).
> 
> We can also handle ERROR by having the device take the fault to CPU,
> then fail during a faulting hmm_range_fault and then dropping the
> ERROR indication toward the device.
> 
> If we already know the page cannot be faulted when we read it it feels
> natural to return that too.

True.  Of course we could just stick an ERR_PTR into the page array
in this case.

> >  - because if it is we don't need output flags at all, and the output
> >    array could be struct pages, which would make for a much easier
> >    to use API
> 
> valid and write is required for the non-faulting case, I don't
> think flags can go away.

Do we have any cases where these aren't simply kept from the input array?
I couldn't find any, but I've not understood some of the subtle details
before.