From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Don Dutile" <ddutile@redhat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Jakowski Andrzej" <andrzej.jakowski@intel.com>,
"Minturn Dave B" <dave.b.minturn@intel.com>,
"Jason Ekstrand" <jason@jlekstrand.net>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Xiong Jianxin" <jianxin.xiong@intel.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor pci_p2pdma_map_type() to take pagmap and device
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:31:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f07f0ca7-9772-5b3b-4cea-9defcefaaf8b@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f719ba91-07ba-c703-2dc9-32cb1214e9c0@deltatee.com>
On 5/3/21 9:30 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-05-02 2:41 p.m., John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 4/8/21 10:01 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> All callers of pci_p2pdma_map_type() have a struct dev_pgmap and a
>>> struct device (of the client doing the DMA transfer). Thus move the
>>> conversion to struct pci_devs for the provider and client into this
>>> function.
>>
>> Actually, this is the wrong direction to go! All of these pre-existing
>> pci_*() functions have a small problem already: they are dealing with
>> struct device, instead of struct pci_dev. And so refactoring should be
>> pushing the conversion to pci_dev *up* the calling stack, not lower as
>> the patch here proposes.
>>
>> Also, there is no improvement in clarity by passing in (pgmap, dev)
>> instead of the previous (provider, client). Now you have to do more type
>> checking in the leaf function, which is another indication of a problem.
>>
>> Let's go that direction, please? Just convert to pci_dev much higher in
>> the calling stack, and you'll find that everything fits together better.
>> And it's OK to pass in extra params if that turns out to be necessary,
>> after all.
>
> No, I disagree with this and it seems a bit confused. This change is
I am not confused here, no. Other places, yes, but not at this moment. :)
> allowing callers to call the function with what they have and doing more
> checks inside the called function. This allows for *less* checks in the
> leaf function, not more checks. (I mean, look at the patch itself, it
> puts a bunch of checks in both call sites into the callee and makes the
> code a lot cleaner -- it's removing more lines than it adds).
>
> Similar argument can be made with the pci_p2pdma_distance_many() (which
> I assume you are referring to). If the function took struct pci_dev
> instead of struct device, every caller would need to do all checks and
> conversions to struct pci_dev. That is not an improvement.
>
IMHO, it is better to have all of the pci_*() functions dealing with pci_dev
instead of dev, but it is also true that this is a larger change, so I
won't press the point too hard right now.
The reason I commented was that this refactoring goes in the opposite
direction that I would be going in, if I were to start "improving" this
part of the kernel, via refactoring.
Anyway, I'll leave it alone.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Don Dutile" <ddutile@redhat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Jakowski Andrzej" <andrzej.jakowski@intel.com>,
"Minturn Dave B" <dave.b.minturn@intel.com>,
"Jason Ekstrand" <jason@jlekstrand.net>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Xiong Jianxin" <jianxin.xiong@intel.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor pci_p2pdma_map_type() to take pagmap and device
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:31:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f07f0ca7-9772-5b3b-4cea-9defcefaaf8b@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f719ba91-07ba-c703-2dc9-32cb1214e9c0@deltatee.com>
On 5/3/21 9:30 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-05-02 2:41 p.m., John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 4/8/21 10:01 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> All callers of pci_p2pdma_map_type() have a struct dev_pgmap and a
>>> struct device (of the client doing the DMA transfer). Thus move the
>>> conversion to struct pci_devs for the provider and client into this
>>> function.
>>
>> Actually, this is the wrong direction to go! All of these pre-existing
>> pci_*() functions have a small problem already: they are dealing with
>> struct device, instead of struct pci_dev. And so refactoring should be
>> pushing the conversion to pci_dev *up* the calling stack, not lower as
>> the patch here proposes.
>>
>> Also, there is no improvement in clarity by passing in (pgmap, dev)
>> instead of the previous (provider, client). Now you have to do more type
>> checking in the leaf function, which is another indication of a problem.
>>
>> Let's go that direction, please? Just convert to pci_dev much higher in
>> the calling stack, and you'll find that everything fits together better.
>> And it's OK to pass in extra params if that turns out to be necessary,
>> after all.
>
> No, I disagree with this and it seems a bit confused. This change is
I am not confused here, no. Other places, yes, but not at this moment. :)
> allowing callers to call the function with what they have and doing more
> checks inside the called function. This allows for *less* checks in the
> leaf function, not more checks. (I mean, look at the patch itself, it
> puts a bunch of checks in both call sites into the callee and makes the
> code a lot cleaner -- it's removing more lines than it adds).
>
> Similar argument can be made with the pci_p2pdma_distance_many() (which
> I assume you are referring to). If the function took struct pci_dev
> instead of struct device, every caller would need to do all checks and
> conversions to struct pci_dev. That is not an improvement.
>
IMHO, it is better to have all of the pci_*() functions dealing with pci_dev
instead of dev, but it is also true that this is a larger change, so I
won't press the point too hard right now.
The reason I commented was that this refactoring goes in the opposite
direction that I would be going in, if I were to start "improving" this
part of the kernel, via refactoring.
Anyway, I'll leave it alone.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Minturn Dave B" <dave.b.minturn@intel.com>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Jason Ekstrand" <jason@jlekstrand.net>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Stephen Bates" <sbates@raithlin.com>,
"Jakowski Andrzej" <andrzej.jakowski@intel.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Xiong Jianxin" <jianxin.xiong@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor pci_p2pdma_map_type() to take pagmap and device
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:31:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f07f0ca7-9772-5b3b-4cea-9defcefaaf8b@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f719ba91-07ba-c703-2dc9-32cb1214e9c0@deltatee.com>
On 5/3/21 9:30 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-05-02 2:41 p.m., John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 4/8/21 10:01 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> All callers of pci_p2pdma_map_type() have a struct dev_pgmap and a
>>> struct device (of the client doing the DMA transfer). Thus move the
>>> conversion to struct pci_devs for the provider and client into this
>>> function.
>>
>> Actually, this is the wrong direction to go! All of these pre-existing
>> pci_*() functions have a small problem already: they are dealing with
>> struct device, instead of struct pci_dev. And so refactoring should be
>> pushing the conversion to pci_dev *up* the calling stack, not lower as
>> the patch here proposes.
>>
>> Also, there is no improvement in clarity by passing in (pgmap, dev)
>> instead of the previous (provider, client). Now you have to do more type
>> checking in the leaf function, which is another indication of a problem.
>>
>> Let's go that direction, please? Just convert to pci_dev much higher in
>> the calling stack, and you'll find that everything fits together better.
>> And it's OK to pass in extra params if that turns out to be necessary,
>> after all.
>
> No, I disagree with this and it seems a bit confused. This change is
I am not confused here, no. Other places, yes, but not at this moment. :)
> allowing callers to call the function with what they have and doing more
> checks inside the called function. This allows for *less* checks in the
> leaf function, not more checks. (I mean, look at the patch itself, it
> puts a bunch of checks in both call sites into the callee and makes the
> code a lot cleaner -- it's removing more lines than it adds).
>
> Similar argument can be made with the pci_p2pdma_distance_many() (which
> I assume you are referring to). If the function took struct pci_dev
> instead of struct device, every caller would need to do all checks and
> conversions to struct pci_dev. That is not an improvement.
>
IMHO, it is better to have all of the pci_*() functions dealing with pci_dev
instead of dev, but it is also true that this is a larger change, so I
won't press the point too hard right now.
The reason I commented was that this refactoring goes in the opposite
direction that I would be going in, if I were to start "improving" this
part of the kernel, via refactoring.
Anyway, I'll leave it alone.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-03 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 297+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-08 17:01 [PATCH 00/16] Add new DMA mapping operation for P2PDMA Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 01/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Pass gfp_mask flags to upstream_bridge_distance_warn() Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 3:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 3:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 3:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 15:57 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 15:57 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 15:57 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:20 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:20 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:20 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:12 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:12 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:12 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:23 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:23 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:23 ` Don Dutile
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 02/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Avoid pci_get_slot() which sleeps Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 5:35 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 5:35 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 5:35 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 16:08 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:08 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:08 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:20 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:20 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:20 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:16 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:16 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:16 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:14 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:14 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:14 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 03/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Attempt to set map_type if it has not been set Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 19:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 19:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 19:58 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:46 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:46 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:46 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 04/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor pci_p2pdma_map_type() to take pagmap and device Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 20:41 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 20:41 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 20:41 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 16:30 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:30 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:30 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:31 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2021-05-03 18:31 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:31 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 18:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 21:54 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 21:54 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 21:54 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 22:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 22:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 22:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 23:40 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 23:40 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 23:40 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 05/16] dma-mapping: Introduce dma_map_sg_p2pdma() Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:49 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:49 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:49 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 23:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 23:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 23:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-03 18:31 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:31 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 18:31 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 21:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 21:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 21:23 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 16:38 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:38 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:38 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 06/16] lib/scatterlist: Add flag for indicating P2PDMA segments in an SGL Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 22:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 07/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Make pci_p2pdma_map_type() non-static Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 22:44 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:44 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:44 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 16:39 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:39 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:39 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 08/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Introduce helpers for dma_map_sg implementations Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 22:52 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:52 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 22:52 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 0:50 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 0:50 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 0:50 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:15 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:15 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:15 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 09/16] dma-direct: Support PCI P2PDMA pages in dma-direct map_sg Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:56 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-02 23:28 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 23:28 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 23:28 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 23:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 23:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 23:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:06 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:06 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:06 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 16:55 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-04 0:12 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:12 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:12 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:04 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:04 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:04 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-04 0:01 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:01 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:01 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 10/16] dma-mapping: Add flags to dma_map_ops to indicate PCI P2PDMA support Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 0:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 0:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 0:32 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:09 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:09 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:09 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 11/16] iommu/dma: Support PCI P2PDMA pages in dma-iommu map_sg Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 1:14 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:14 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:14 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-06 23:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-06 23:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-06 23:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:06 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:35 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:35 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-11 16:35 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 12/16] nvme-pci: Check DMA ops when indicating support for PCI P2PDMA Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 1:29 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:29 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:29 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:17 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-04 0:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 13/16] nvme-pci: Convert to using dma_map_sg_p2pdma for p2pdma pages Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 1:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:34 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 17:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 17:19 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-04 0:26 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:26 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-04 0:26 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 14/16] nvme-rdma: Ensure dma support when using p2pdma Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 22:59 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-05-03 1:37 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:37 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-03 1:37 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 15/16] RDMA/rw: use dma_map_sg_p2pdma() Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` [PATCH 16/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Remove pci_p2pdma_[un]map_sg() Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-08 17:01 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:28 ` [PATCH 00/16] Add new DMA mapping operation for P2PDMA Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 19:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-04-27 20:21 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-27 20:21 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-27 20:21 ` John Hubbard
2021-04-27 20:48 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-27 20:48 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-27 20:48 ` Dan Williams
2021-05-02 1:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 1:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-02 1:22 ` John Hubbard
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
2021-05-11 16:05 ` Don Dutile
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f07f0ca7-9772-5b3b-4cea-9defcefaaf8b@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrzej.jakowski@intel.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dave.b.minturn@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jason@jlekstrand.net \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jianxin.xiong@intel.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=sbates@raithlin.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.