* [PATCH] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix a source code comment
@ 2019-08-15 21:28 Bart Van Assche
2019-08-15 21:32 ` Logan Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2019-08-15 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: linux-pci, Bart Van Assche, Logan Gunthorpe, Christoph Hellwig,
Keith Busch
Commit 52916982af48 ("PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory"; v4.20)
introduced the following text: "there's no way to determine whether the
root complex supports forwarding between them." A later commit added a
whitelist check in the function that comment applies to. Update the
comment to reflect the addition of the whitelist check.
Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
---
drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c b/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
index 234476226529..f719adc2b826 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
@@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ static bool root_complex_whitelist(struct pci_dev *dev)
* Any two devices that don't have a common upstream bridge will return -1.
* In this way devices on separate PCIe root ports will be rejected, which
* is what we want for peer-to-peer seeing each PCIe root port defines a
- * separate hierarchy domain and there's no way to determine whether the root
- * complex supports forwarding between them.
+ * separate hierarchy domain and there's no way other than using a whitelist
+ * to determine whether the root complex supports forwarding between them.
*
* In the case where two devices are connected to different PCIe switches,
* this function will still return a positive distance as long as both
--
2.23.0.rc1.153.gdeed80330f-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix a source code comment
2019-08-15 21:28 [PATCH] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix a source code comment Bart Van Assche
@ 2019-08-15 21:32 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 22:41 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Logan Gunthorpe @ 2019-08-15 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bart Van Assche, Bjorn Helgaas; +Cc: linux-pci, Christoph Hellwig, Keith Busch
On 2019-08-15 3:28 p.m., Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Commit 52916982af48 ("PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory"; v4.20)
> introduced the following text: "there's no way to determine whether the
> root complex supports forwarding between them." A later commit added a
> whitelist check in the function that comment applies to. Update the
> comment to reflect the addition of the whitelist check.
Thanks for the vigilant patch, but I've already got a series[1] that
cleans up most of these commits. It looks like this patch will conflict
with that series.
Logan
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20190812173048.9186-1-logang@deltatee.com/
> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
> ---
> drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c b/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
> index 234476226529..f719adc2b826 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c
> @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ static bool root_complex_whitelist(struct pci_dev *dev)
> * Any two devices that don't have a common upstream bridge will return -1.
> * In this way devices on separate PCIe root ports will be rejected, which
> * is what we want for peer-to-peer seeing each PCIe root port defines a
> - * separate hierarchy domain and there's no way to determine whether the root
> - * complex supports forwarding between them.
> + * separate hierarchy domain and there's no way other than using a whitelist
> + * to determine whether the root complex supports forwarding between them.
> *
> * In the case where two devices are connected to different PCIe switches,
> * this function will still return a positive distance as long as both
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix a source code comment
2019-08-15 21:32 ` Logan Gunthorpe
@ 2019-08-15 22:41 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2019-08-15 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Logan Gunthorpe, Bjorn Helgaas; +Cc: linux-pci, Christoph Hellwig, Keith Busch
On 8/15/19 2:32 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2019-08-15 3:28 p.m., Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Commit 52916982af48 ("PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory"; v4.20)
>> introduced the following text: "there's no way to determine whether the
>> root complex supports forwarding between them." A later commit added a
>> whitelist check in the function that comment applies to. Update the
>> comment to reflect the addition of the whitelist check.
>
> Thanks for the vigilant patch, but I've already got a series[1] that
> cleans up most of these commits. It looks like this patch will conflict
> with that series.
Hi Logan,
Thanks for the pointer. I'm fine with dropping this patch.
Bart.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-15 22:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-08-15 21:28 [PATCH] PCI/P2PDMA: Fix a source code comment Bart Van Assche
2019-08-15 21:32 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 22:41 ` Bart Van Assche
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).