On 12/10/2021 2:28, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:55:49AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 07/10/2021 14:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 01:43:00PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>>
>>>> @@ -1491,26 +1493,29 @@ static int efa_create_pbl(struct efa_dev *dev,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -struct ib_mr *efa_reg_mr(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start, u64 length,
>>>> - u64 virt_addr, int access_flags,
>>>> - struct ib_udata *udata)
>>>> +static void efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
>>>> +{
>>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1,
>>>> + "Invalidate callback should not be called when memory is pinned\n");
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct dma_buf_attach_ops efa_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
>>>> + .allow_peer2peer = true,
>>>> + .move_notify = efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Shouldn't move_notify really just be left as NULL? I mean fixing
>>> whatever is preventing that?
>>
>> That's what I had in the previous RFC and I think Christian didn't really like it.
>
> Well, having drivers define a dummy function that only fails looks
> a lot worse to me. If not null then it should be a general
> 'dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify' shared function
Will do.
>>>> + err = ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages(umem_dmabuf);
>>>> + if (err) {
>>>> + ibdev_dbg(&dev->ibdev, "Failed to map dmabuf pages\n");
>>>> + goto err_unpin;
>>>> + }
>>>> + dma_resv_unlock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv);
>>>
>>> If it is really this simple the core code should have this logic,
>>> 'ib_umem_dmabuf_get_pinned()' or something
>>
>> Should get_pinned do just get + dma_buf_pin, or should it do
>> ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages as well?
>
> Yes the map_pages too, a umem is supposed to be dma mapped after
> creation.
Will do, thanks Jason.
