On 4/23/26 16:57, Gregory Price wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 04:13:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> On 4/23/26 15:42, Gregory Price wrote: >> >> Maybe we could forward the vma+addr here and call a vma_alloc_froze_folio() >> if >> we have a VMA+addr to have a clean interface. >> >> But really, that hugetlb code is rather messy. I'd vote for leaving hugetlb >> alone on a v1, and focusing on non-hugetlb first. >> > > If we're ok increasing the buddy surface this way, then I'd vote for > only updating the exact interfaces that MST needs to update for his use > case in a base set of patches, and then have each additional updated > location (or logical set of locations) updated in follow-ups. > > My initial go around with this - the patch was hard to read at best. > > But I also think we should also seriously consider not increasing the > surface of the buddy.
Exactly, that's why I am saying that vma_alloc_folio() is the only external interface people should be using with a user address. all other _noprof helpers are supposed to be internal. For hugetlb, we might need another interface for frozen folios later, which is why I suggest to defer that. -- Cheers, David
