[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1492564669.25766.122.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:17:49 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 14:48 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > ...and that dma_map goes through get_dma_ops(), so I don't see the conflict?
>
> The main conflict is in dma_map_sg which only does get_dma_ops once but
> the sg may contain memory of different types.
We can handle that in our "overriden" dma ops.
It's a bit tricky but it *could* break it down into segments and
forward portions back to the original dma ops.
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists