[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200624020716.GB40094@VM20190228-100.tbsite.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:07:16 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: kbusch@...nel.org, axboe@...com, sagi@...mberg.me,
baolin.wang7@...il.com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] nvme-pci: Add controller memory buffer supported
macro
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 06:27:51PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:24:33PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > Introduce a new capability macro to indicate if the controller
> > supports the memory buffer or not, instead of reading the
> > NVME_REG_CMBSZ register.
>
> This is a complex issue. The CMBS bit was only added in NVMe 1.4 as
> a backwards incompatible change, as the CMB addressing scheme can lead
Ah, right, I think I should add another version condition:
if ((ctrl->vs >= NVME_VS(1, 4, 0) && !NVME_CAP_CMBS(dev->ctrl.cap)) ||
dev->cmb_size)
return;
> to data corruption. The CMBS was added as part of the horribe hack
> that also involves the CBA field, which we'll need to see before
> using it to work around the addressing issue. At the same time we
> should also continue supporting the legacy pre-1.4 CMB with a warning
> (and may reject it if we know we run in a VM).
Thanks for your explanation. I saw we've added an CMB sysfs attribute
to get the CMB location and size if we enabled CMB, so should we still
add some information in nvme_map_cmb() let user know explicitly?
dev_info(dev->ctrl.device, "Registered the CMB, bar=0x%x, size=%lld\n", bar,
size);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists