On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:50:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > Oh, because all we have at this point is ioremap_cache() which > > silently falls back. It's not until the introduction of > > arch_memremp() where we update the arch code to break that behavior. > > Ok, makes sense. Might be worth to document in the changelog. > > > That said, I think it may be beneficial to allow a fallback if the > > user cares. So maybe memremap() can call plain ioremap() if > > MEMREMAP_STRICT is not set and none of the other mapping types are > > satisfied. > > Is there a real use case for it? Fallback APIs always seem confusing > and it might make more sense to do this in the caller(s) that actually > need it. It seems semantics-wise we are trying to separate these two really, so I agree with this. Having a fallback would onloy make things more complicated for any sanitizer / checker / etc, and I don't think the practical gains of having a fallback outweight the gains of having a clear semantic separation on intended memory type and interactions with it. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
