[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a01a0ef4-3b0a-b169-2628-cb8fbe51867c@deltatee.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:40:13 -0600
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory
On 12/03/18 09:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Maybe, dev parameter should also be struct pci_dev so that you can get rid of
> all to_pci_dev() calls in this code including find_parent_pci_dev() function.
No, this was mentioned in v2. find_parent_pci_dev is necessary because
the calling drivers aren't likely to have a bunch of struct pci_dev's
for all the devices they are working with lying around. It's a much
nicer from an API stand point to take struct devs and not worth it just
to have a PCI API only taking struct pci_devs.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists