On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 05:28:38PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 2021-09-29 5:21 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:50:02PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2021-09-28 2:02 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 05:40:40PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> This patchset continues my work to add userspace P2PDMA access using > >>>> O_DIRECT NVMe devices. My last posting[1] just included the first 13 > >>>> patches in this series, but the early P2PDMA cleanup and map_sg error > >>>> changes from that series have been merged into v5.15-rc1. To address > >>>> concerns that that series did not add any new functionality, I've added > >>>> back the userspcae functionality from the original RFC[2] (but improved > >>>> based on the original feedback). > >>> > >>> I really think this is the best series yet, it really looks nice > >>> overall. I know the sg flag was a bit of a debate at the start, but it > >>> serves an undeniable purpose and the resulting standard DMA APIs 'just > >>> working' is really clean. > >> > >> Actually, so far, nobody has said anything negative about using the SG flag. > >> > >>> There is more possible here, we could also pass the new GUP flag in the > >>> ib_umem code.. > >> > >> Yes, that would be very useful. > > > > You might actually prefer to do that then the bio changes to get the > > infrastructur merged as it seems less "core" > > I'm a little bit more concerned about my patch set growing too large. > It's already at 20 patches and I think I'll need to add a couple more > based on the feedback you've already provided. So I'm leaning toward > pushing more functionality as future work. I mean you could postpone the three block related patches and use a single ib_umem patch instead as the consumer. Jason
