lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:19:32 -0600 From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>, Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory On 19/04/17 12:11 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 19/04/17 11:41 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> No, not quite ;-). I still don't think we should require the non-HMM >> to pass NULL for all the HMM arguments. What I like about Logan's >> proposal is to have a separate create and register steps dev_pagemap. >> That way call paths that don't care about HMM specifics can just turn >> around and register the vanilla dev_pagemap. > > Would you necessarily even need a create step? I was thinking more along > the lines that struct dev_pagemap _could_ just be a member in another > structure. The caller would set the attributes they needed and pass it > to devm_memremap. (Similar to how we commonly do things with struct > device, et al). Potentially, that could also get rid of the need for the > *data pointer HMM is using to get back the struct hmm_devmem seeing > container_of could be used instead. Also, now that I've thought about it a little more, it _may_ be that many or all of the hmm specific fields in dev_pagemap could move to a containing struct too... Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists