linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] pci/p2p: add a function to test peer to peer capability

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:25:33 +0100
From:   Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] pci/p2p: add a function to test peer to peer
 capability

Am 29.01.19 um 21:24 schrieb Logan Gunthorpe:
>
> On 2019-01-29 12:56 p.m., Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:47 PM <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> device_test_p2p() return true if two devices can peer to peer to
>>> each other. We add a generic function as different inter-connect
>>> can support peer to peer and we want to genericaly test this no
>>> matter what the inter-connect might be. However this version only
>>> support PCIE for now.
>>>
>> What about something like these patches:
>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux/commit/?h=p2p&id=4fab9ff69cb968183f717551441b475fabce6c1c
>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux/commit/?h=p2p&id=f90b12d41c277335d08c9dab62433f27c0fadbe5
>> They are a bit more thorough.
> Those new functions seem to have a lot of overlap with the code that is
> already upstream in p2pdma.... Perhaps you should be improving the
> p2pdma functions if they aren't suitable for what you want already
> instead of creating new ones.

Yeah, well that's what I was suggesting for the very beginning :)

But completely agree the existing functions should be improved instead 
of adding new ones,
Christian.

>
> Logan
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

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