Re: [PATCH 4/7] alpha: provide ioread64 and iowrite64 implementations

2017-06-25 Thread Stephen Bates
> +#define iowrite64be(v,p) iowrite32(cpu_to_be64(v), (p)) Logan, thanks for taking this cleanup on. I think this should be iowrite64 not iowrite32? Stephen ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Re: Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices

2017-01-12 Thread Stephen Bates
On Fri, January 6, 2017 4:10 pm, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 06/01/17 11:26 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > >> Make a generic API for all of this and you'd have my vote.. >> >> >> IMHO, you must support basic pinning semantics - that is necessary to >> support generic short lived DMA (eg

Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices

2016-12-06 Thread Stephen Bates
>>> I've already recommended that iopmem not be a block device and >>> instead be a device-dax instance. I also don't think it should claim >>> the PCI ID, rather the driver that wants to map one of its bars this >>> way can register the memory region with the device-dax core. >>> >>> I'm not sure

Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices

2016-12-04 Thread Stephen Bates
Hi All This has been a great thread (thanks to Alex for kicking it off) and I wanted to jump in and maybe try and put some summary around the discussion. I also wanted to propose we include this as a topic for LFS/MM because I think we need more discussion on the best way to add this

Enabling peer to peer device transactions for PCIe devices

2016-12-04 Thread Stephen Bates
>> >> The NVMe fabrics stuff could probably make use of this. It's an >> in-kernel system to allow remote access to an NVMe device over RDMA. So >> they ought to be able to optimize their transfers by DMAing directly to >> the NVMe's CMB -- no userspace interface would be required but there >>