[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625114422.GA3118@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:44:28 +0000
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] mm: mark DEVICE_PUBLIC as broken
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:29:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:26:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 13-06-19 11:43:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > The code hasn't been used since it was added to the tree, and doesn't
> > > appear to actually be usable. Mark it as BROKEN until either a user
> > > comes along or we finally give up on it.
> >
> > I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code.
>
> I looked into that as I now got the feedback twice. It would
> create a conflict with another tree cleaning things up around the
> is_device_private defintion, but otherwise I'd be glad to just remove
> it.
>
> Jason, as this goes through your tree, do you mind the additional
> conflict?
Which tree and what does the resolution look like?
Also, I don't want to be making the decision if we should keep/remove
DEVICE_PUBLIC, so let's get an Ack from Andrew/etc?
My main reluctance is that I know there is HW out there that can do
coherent, and I want to believe they are coming with patches, just
too slowly. But I'd also rather those people defend themselves :P
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists