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
> >> + 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.
Jason
