Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 11:31:26 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC:     Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Jakowski Andrzej <andrzej.jakowski@...el.com>,
        Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>,
        Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor pci_p2pdma_map_type() to take
 pagmap and device

On 5/3/21 9:30 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021-05-02 2:41 p.m., John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 4/8/21 10:01 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> All callers of pci_p2pdma_map_type() have a struct dev_pgmap and a
>>> struct device (of the client doing the DMA transfer). Thus move the
>>> conversion to struct pci_devs for the provider and client into this
>>> function.
>>
>> Actually, this is the wrong direction to go! All of these pre-existing
>> pci_*() functions have a small problem already: they are dealing with
>> struct device, instead of struct pci_dev. And so refactoring should be
>> pushing the conversion to pci_dev *up* the calling stack, not lower as
>> the patch here proposes.
>>
>> Also, there is no improvement in clarity by passing in (pgmap, dev)
>> instead of the previous (provider, client). Now you have to do more type
>> checking in the leaf function, which is another indication of a problem.
>>
>> Let's go that direction, please? Just convert to pci_dev much higher in
>> the calling stack, and you'll find that everything fits together better.
>> And it's OK to pass in extra params if that turns out to be necessary,
>> after all.
> 
> No, I disagree with this and it seems a bit confused. This change is

I am not confused here, no. Other places, yes, but not at this moment. :)

> allowing callers to call the function with what they have and doing more
> checks inside the called function. This allows for *less* checks in the
> leaf function, not more checks. (I mean, look at the patch itself, it
> puts a bunch of checks in both call sites into the callee and makes the
> code a lot cleaner -- it's removing more lines than it adds).
> 
> Similar argument can be made with the pci_p2pdma_distance_many() (which
> I assume you are referring to). If the function took struct pci_dev
> instead of struct device, every caller would need to do all checks and
> conversions to struct pci_dev. That is not an improvement.
> 


IMHO, it is better to have all of the pci_*() functions dealing with pci_dev
instead of dev, but it is also true that this is a larger change, so I
won't press the point too hard right now.

The reason I commented was that this refactoring goes in the opposite
direction that I would be going in, if I were to start "improving" this
part of the kernel, via refactoring.

Anyway, I'll leave it alone.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Powered by blists - more mailing lists