On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:33:57AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:12:49AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:58:02 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [..] > > > Also, the discussion regarding [07/10] is substantial and is ongoing so > > > please let's push along wth that. > > > > I can move it as last patch in the serie but it is needed for ODP RDMA > > convertion too. Otherwise i will just move that code into the ODP RDMA > > code and will have to move it again into HMM code once i am done with > > the nouveau changes and in the meantime i expect other driver will want > > to use this 2 helpers too. > > I still hold out hope that we can find a way to have productive > discussions about the implementation of this infrastructure. > Threatening to move the code elsewhere to bypass the feedback is not > productive. I am not threatening anything that code is in ODP _today_ with that patchset i was factering it out so that i could also use it in nouveau. nouveau is built in such way that right now i can not use it directly. But i wanted to factor out now in hope that i can get the nouveau changes in 5.2 and then convert nouveau in 5.3. So when i said that code will be in ODP it just means that instead of removing it from ODP i will keep it there and it will just delay more code sharing for everyone. > > > > > > > > > What is the review/discussion status of "[PATCH 09/10] mm/hmm: allow to > > > mirror vma of a file on a DAX backed filesystem"? > > > > I explained that this is needed for the ODP RDMA convertion as ODP RDMA > > does supported DAX today and thus i can not push that convertion without > > that support as otherwise i would regress RDMA ODP. > > > > Also this is to be use by nouveau which is upstream and there is no > > reasons to not support vma that happens to be mmap of a file on a file- > > system that is using a DAX block device. > > > > I do not think Dan had any comment code wise, i think he was complaining > > about the wording of the commit not being clear and i proposed an updated > > wording that he seemed to like. > > Yes, please resend with the updated changelog and I'll ack.
