On 7/24/19 6:14 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:05:06PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes
a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct
mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:05:06PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes
> a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct
> mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace hmm_update with
> mmu_notifier_range
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-07-19 20:56:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
>
> One comment on a related cleanup:
>
> > list_for_each_entry(mirror, >mirrors, list) {
> > int rc;
> >
> > - rc =
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:28:58PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Humm. Actually having looked this some more, I wonder if this is a
> > problem:
>
> What a mess.
>
> Question: do we even care for the non-blocking events?
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:48:55PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:21:55PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > If we change the register to keep the hlist sorted by address then we
> > can do a targetted 'undo' of past starts terminated by address
> > less-than
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Looks good:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
> > >
> > > One comment on a related cleanup:
> >
On Wed 24-07-19 20:56:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime,
> > > back then, none of the notifier has even
On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime,
> > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking
> > mode on a EAGAIN
On Wed 24-07-19 17:33:05, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:28:58PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Humm. Actually having looked this some more, I wonder if this is a
> > problem:
>
> What a mess.
>
> Question: do we even care for the non-blocking events? The only place
>
On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Looks good:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
> >
> > One comment on a related cleanup:
> >
> > > list_for_each_entry(mirror, >mirrors, list) {
> > > int
The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes
a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct
mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace hmm_update with
mmu_notifier_range directly.
Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell
Cc: "Jérôme Glisse"
Cc: Jason
12 matches
Mail list logo
