On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some > > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no > > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like > > to get at least the others considered. > > Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking > mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so: > > - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it > as-is. Your decision if you want to respin. I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell. > - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path > Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc. Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so they're not holding up the others. > - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too, > this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the > __mmu_notifier function To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also wrapped around invalidate_range_end? From my understanding of pte zapping that makes sense, but I'm definitely not well-versed enough for that. > Can you respin? Will do. > I will propose preloading the map in another patch > - #5 is already applied in -rc Yup, I'll drop that one. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
