On 19/04/17 12:11 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 19/04/17 11:41 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> No, not quite ;-). I still don't think we should require the non-HMM >> to pass NULL for all the HMM arguments. What I like about Logan's >> proposal is to have a separate create and register steps dev_pagemap. >> That way call paths that don't care about HMM specifics can just turn >> around and register the vanilla dev_pagemap. > > Would you necessarily even need a create step? I was thinking more along > the lines that struct dev_pagemap _could_ just be a member in another > structure. The caller would set the attributes they needed and pass it > to devm_memremap. (Similar to how we commonly do things with struct > device, et al). Potentially, that could also get rid of the need for the > *data pointer HMM is using to get back the struct hmm_devmem seeing > container_of could be used instead. Also, now that I've thought about it a little more, it _may_ be that many or all of the hmm specific fields in dev_pagemap could move to a containing struct too... Logan
