On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:55:39PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA > > subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code > > to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar. > > From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side > > wants to maintain bitmap not for 1 page, but for more size. Eventually it > > use bitmap where one bit represents 64 pages. > > > > When I implement CMA related patches, I should change those two places > > to apply my change and it seem to be painful to me. I want to change > > this situation and reduce future code management overhead through > > this patch. > > > > This change could also help developer who want to use CMA in their > > new feature development, since they can use CMA easily without > > copying & pasting this reserved area management code. > > > > v2: > > Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. > > > > Patch 1-5 prepare some features to cover ppc kvm's requirements. > > Patch 6-7 generalize CMA reserved area management code and change users > > to use it. > > Patch 8-10 clean-up minor things. > > > I wanted to test the ppc changes and found that the patch series doesn't apply > against v3.15 . Do you have a kernel tree which I can clone to test this > series ? This is based on linux-next -next-20140610. And my tree is on following link. https://github.com/JoonsooKim/linux/tree/cma-general-v2.0-next-20140610 But, I think I'm late, because you have already added a Tested-by tag. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
