[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZGSLbNJKQGbtvL0S@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 01:08:12 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, arnd@...db.de, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
David.Laight@...lab.com, shorne@...il.com, willy@...radead.org,
deller@....de, Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND 10/17] s390: mm: Convert to GENERIC_IOREMAP
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:58:26AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > and just define this to ioremap_wc. Note that defining _wt to _wc is
> > very odd and seems wrong, but comes from the existing code. Maybe the
> > s390 maintainers can chime on on the background and we can add a comment
> > while we're at it.
>
> I'm a bit confused where you see ioremap_wt() defined to ioremap_wc()
> in the existing code? Our current definitions are:
No, it's me wo is confused. They clearly are different. But the same
comment about just moving ioremap_wc applies to ioremap_wt based
on how pgprot_writethrough is implemented then.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists