On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:56:35PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > And I still don't really understand. After this patchset, there is still code > > nearly identical to the above (doing a temporary mapping just for a memcpy) that > > would still be using kmap_atomic(). > > I don't understand. You mean there would be other call sites calling: > > kmap_atomic() > memcpy() > kunmap_atomic() Yes, there are tons of places that do this. Try 'git grep -A6 kmap_atomic' and look for memcpy(). Hence why I'm asking what will be the "recommended" way to do this... kunmap_thread() or kmap_atomic()? > And since I don't know the call site details if there are kmap_thread() calls > which are better off as kmap_atomic() calls I think it is worth converting > them. But I made the assumption that kmap users would already be calling > kmap_atomic() if they could (because it is more efficient). Not necessarily. In cases where either one is correct, people might not have put much thought into which of kmap() and kmap_atomic() they are using. - Eric _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
