[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150729065004.GA17162@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:50:04 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@...com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arch: introduce memremap()
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Oh, because all we have at this point is ioremap_cache() which
> silently falls back. It's not until the introduction of
> arch_memremp() where we update the arch code to break that behavior.
Ok, makes sense. Might be worth to document in the changelog.
> That said, I think it may be beneficial to allow a fallback if the
> user cares. So maybe memremap() can call plain ioremap() if
> MEMREMAP_STRICT is not set and none of the other mapping types are
> satisfied.
Is there a real use case for it? Fallback APIs always seem confusing
and it might make more sense to do this in the caller(s) that actually
need it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists