lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory


    On 19/04/17 12:11 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
    >
    >
    > On 19/04/17 11:41 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
    >> No, not quite ;-). I still don't think we should require the non-HMM
    >> to pass NULL for all the HMM arguments. What I like about Logan's
    >> proposal is to have a separate create and register steps dev_pagemap.
    >> That way call paths that don't care about HMM specifics can just turn
    >> around and register the vanilla dev_pagemap.
    >
    > Would you necessarily even need a create step? I was thinking more along
    > the lines that struct dev_pagemap _could_ just be a member in another
    > structure. The caller would set the attributes they needed and pass it
    > to devm_memremap. (Similar to how we commonly do things with struct
    > device, et al). Potentially, that could also get rid of the need for the
    > *data pointer HMM is using to get back the struct hmm_devmem seeing
    > container_of could be used instead.

    Also, now that I've thought about it a little more, it _may_ be that
    many or all of the hmm specific fields in dev_pagemap could move to a
    containing struct too...

    Logan

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-04-19 20:20    [W:4.193 / U:2.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site