From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f50.google.com (mail-ej1-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAD117B for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2022 15:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f50.google.com with SMTP id u15so20026635ejf.11 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:52:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WB0OkA4npUVlTHKxP5L/zecMJKXRJHu4yHb6ykPI+d0=; b=p1PdgWeV4/8OWZSYyJ2Gtl7Sb29XmosvPG966HCgE+yOaNpBXl37cLieNQh1YhCimK cfjREeBGHHB7QtLvlG2M7NPMi038s27WDZ0PyHroXUbzv8mgsj8Qhdb/F8TEqVYIKDvg tN2I6HQfvs2KlGV6UrdM8caLjg8HNpylVyGPM+5YIoS2WwN63G32fgwrsxy2k66zCBgy Bri21J62bTzs2JnbGPL282vrgIBnHBLUgIuY3xW1qVAqJTdBaTnOL018zIF1KpddLUp4 4Ah+hh5gs2LzYujyxZoo+L3hfQCXXhiJI0eiTbhDXRppsWwKweBe2G3/IYbK4AkHMquQ LBYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WB0OkA4npUVlTHKxP5L/zecMJKXRJHu4yHb6ykPI+d0=; b=FKkwnUYTKrlx8RPUczPf7FX+uqOLh/ubVNlZPwxeZqyC9mDKnR4iCwgW0LZEXZb+h/ Y7uuql64l32xWKksW5+xlfHapy9L4J8iA7BTXKoIiZF37ayvuWUtaV/jAXa8xtsFfZVg tAQpTrbRe2FZFOiNaAfgFEv9C3cv37eXlKtsFCSHucqVerPxAAQhU/dKF8I6EyP9DHWS /cjYmou0UvjgvCRrluTDcsXbzG7Fc7kzOXhclurq9LDJ/i/XkJeNAZPSE6V88StdZiwK UKVfm3gdQ3HkcdyWN8MYBGcsnrHQ8Hjrk9DXazTejAYfbJSZFfStVKalWufkixOsim1L 4edg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533043TcKXTLmpWDUd9N9TeXNhZEtkmzpZXFgs5mAmBBJqOrzMjC esbBcLRU2t5y3I8frT2ONi0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxtNuBtqOCmrmCxvK+GvsLdC4aeyXb2uo3u3eVpeTvHsXFV6Kh5xcnPCNk6rHSsh2eMiP5cg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:dc8b:b0:6ef:86e8:777 with SMTP id cs11-20020a170906dc8b00b006ef86e80777mr1451459ejc.326.1650124343944; Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leap.localnet (host-79-50-86-254.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.50.86.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fy11-20020a1709069f0b00b006e8b68c92d8sm2752978ejc.162.2022.04.16.08.52.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:52:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Alaa Mohamed , Julia Lawall Cc: Julia Lawall , outreachy@lists.linux.dev, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ira.weiny@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] intel: igb: igb_ethtool.c: Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1897617.PYKUYFuaPT@leap> In-Reply-To: References: <20220416111457.5868-1-eng.alaamohamedsoliman.am@gmail.com> <857a2d22-5d0f-99d6-6686-98d50e4491d5@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: outreachy@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" On sabato 16 aprile 2022 16:09:58 CEST Julia Lawall wrote: >=20 > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: >=20 > > > > On =D9=A1=D9=A6/=D9=A4/=D9=A2=D9 =D9=A2=D9=A2 =D9=A1=D9=A3:=D9=A3=D9=A1= , Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: > > > > > > > Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() > > > > > > > > With kmap_local_page(), the mapping is per thread, CPU local and=20 not > > > > globally visible. > > > It's not clearer. > > I mean this " fix kunmap_local path value to take address of the mapped= =20 page" > > be more clearer > > > This is a general statement about the function. You > > > need to explain why it is appropriate to use it here. Unless it is=20 the > > > case that all calls to kmap should be converted to call=20 kmap_local_page. > > It's required to convert all calls kmap to kmap_local_page. So, I don't= =20 what > > should the commit message be? >=20 > If all calls should be changed then you can also say that. If all calls should be changed with no regards to the surrounding contexts= =20 and special situations, we can just make an automated s/kmap()/ kmap_local_page()/ or something else similar :) Thanks, =46abio M. De Francesco >=20 > I thought that a previous commit on the outreachy list made some=20 arguments > about how the affacted value was just allocated and thus could not yet be > shared. >=20 > julia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio M. De Francesco Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 17:52:20 +0200 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3] intel: igb: igb_ethtool.c: Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() In-Reply-To: References: <20220416111457.5868-1-eng.alaamohamedsoliman.am@gmail.com> <857a2d22-5d0f-99d6-6686-98d50e4491d5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1897617.PYKUYFuaPT@leap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On sabato 16 aprile 2022 16:09:58 CEST Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: > > > > > On ????/??/??? ???? ????:????, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Alaa Mohamed wrote: > > > > > > > Convert kmap() to kmap_local_page() > > > > > > > > With kmap_local_page(), the mapping is per thread, CPU local and not > > > > globally visible. > > > It's not clearer. > > I mean this " fix kunmap_local path value to take address of the mapped page" > > be more clearer > > > This is a general statement about the function. You > > > need to explain why it is appropriate to use it here. Unless it is the > > > case that all calls to kmap should be converted to call kmap_local_page. > > It's required to convert all calls kmap to kmap_local_page. So, I don't what > > should the commit message be? > > If all calls should be changed then you can also say that. If all calls should be changed with no regards to the surrounding contexts and special situations, we can just make an automated s/kmap()/ kmap_local_page()/ or something else similar :) Thanks, Fabio M. De Francesco > > I thought that a previous commit on the outreachy list made some arguments > about how the affacted value was just allocated and thus could not yet be > shared. > > julia