[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvIU/wMdqFA1fYc6@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 01:04:15 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Yuji Ishikawa <yuji2.ishikawa@...hiba.co.jp>,
Jiho Chu <jiho.chu@...sung.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New subsystem for acceleration devices
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 08:23:27AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Based on the number of drivers that I see submitted weekly that try to
> restrict their open call to just one user by using atomic variables or
> other tricks, I think my interpretation of this stands :)
I think they really want what Jason described most of the time. They
just don't know about the pitfalls of dup yet.
> > This is different from the number of FDs pointing at the struct file.
> > Userpsace can open a HW state and point a lot of FDs at it, that is
> > userspace's problem. From a kernel view they all share one struct file
> > and thus one HW state.
>
> Yes, that's fine, if that is what is happening here, I have no
> objection.
It would be great if we could actually life that into a common
layer (chardev or vfs) given just how common this, and drivers tend
to get it wrong, do it suboptimal so often.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists