On 2019-08-06 5:44 p.m., Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:35:31AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> Here's v2 of the patchset. It doesn't sound like there's anything >> terribly controversial here so this version is mostly just some >> cleanup changes for clarity. >> >> Changes in v2: >> * Rebase on v5.3-rc2 (No changes) >> * Re-introduce the private pagemap structure and move the p2p-specific >> elements out of the commond dev_pagemap (per Christoph) >> * Use flags instead of bool in the whitelist (per Jason) >> * Only store the mapping type in the xarray (instead of the distance >> with flags) such that a function can return the mapping method >> with a switch statement to decide how to map. (per Christoph) >> * Drop find_parent_pci_dev() on the fast path and rely on the fact >> that the struct device passed to the mapping functions *must* be >> a PCI device and convert it directly. (per suggestions from >> Christoph and Jason) >> * Collected Christian's Reviewed-by's >> -- >> >> As discussed on the list previously, in order to fully support the >> whitelist Christian added with the IOMMU, we must ensure that we >> map any buffer going through the IOMMU with an aprropriate dma_map >> call. This patchset accomplishes this by cleaning up the output of >> upstream_bridge_distance() to better indicate the mapping requirements, >> caching these requirements in an xarray, then looking them up at map >> time and applying the appropriate mapping method. >> >> After this patchset, it's possible to use the NVMe-of P2P support to >> transfer between devices without a switch on the whitelisted root >> complexes. A couple Intel device I have tested this on have also >> been added to the white list. >> >> Most of the changes are contained within the p2pdma.c, but there are >> a few minor touches to other subsystems, mostly to add support >> to call an unmap function. >> >> The final patch in this series demonstrates a possible >> pci_p2pdma_map_resource() function that I expect Christian will need >> but does not have any users at this time so I don't intend for it to be >> considered for merging. > > I don't see pci_p2pdma_map_resource() in any of these patches. Oh, sorry, I removed that in v2 seeing there was some confusion over it. I guess I forgot to remove the reference in the cover letter. > I tentatively applied these to pci/p2pdma with minor typographical > updates (below), but I'll update the branch if necessary. Great, thanks! The typographical changes look good. I already have one very minor change queued up for these. Should I just send you a small patch against your branch for you to squash? Logan
