On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 19/04/17 02:48 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:41:49PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> >>>> But.. it could point to a GPU and the GPU struct device could have a >>>> proxy dma_ops like Dan pointed out. >>> >>> Seems a bit awkward to me that in order for the intended use case, you >>> have to proxy the dma_ops. I'd probably still suggest throwing a couple >>> ops for things like this in the dev_pagemap. >> >> Another option is adding a new 'struct completer_dma_ops *' to struct >> device for this use case. >> >> Seems like a waste to expand dev_pagemap when we only need a unique >> value per struct device? > > I feel like expanding dev_pagemap has a much lower impact than expanding > struct device... dev_pagemap is only one instance per zone device region > so expanding it shouldn't be a huge issue. Expanding struct device means > every device struct in the system gets bigger. Especially since we expect a very small subset of devices will ever support p2p. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
