[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y85ahCk3sRTVAU8O@8bytes.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:59:32 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Add a gfp parameter to iommu_map()
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 01:53:40PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Well, having GFP parameters is not a strict kernel convention. There are
> > places doing it differently and have sleeping and atomic variants of
> > APIs. I have to say I like the latter more. But given that this leads to
> > an invasion of API functions here which all do the same under the hood, I
> > agree it is better to go with a GFP parameter here.
>
> Ok, I think we are done with this series, I'll stick it in linux-next
> for a bit and send you a PR so the trees stay in sync
This series mostly touches parts outside of IOMMUFD, so we should follow
the process here and let this reach linux-next via the IOMMU tree.
Please send me a new version and I will put it into a separate branch
where you can pull it from.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists