Hi Daniel,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 16:36, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Sumit Semwal wrote:
> >
> > Hello Chenbo,Thank you for your RFC series.
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Sumit Semwal wrote:
>
> Hello Chenbo,Thank you for your RFC series.
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> >
> > Currently, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode. While we can count
> > how many dma-buf fds or mappings a process has, we can't
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:49 AM Sumit Semwal wrote:
>
> Hello Chenbo,Thank you for your RFC series.
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> >
> > Currently, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode. While we can count
> > how many dma-buf fds or mappings a process has, we
Hello Chenbo,Thank you for your RFC series.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Chenbo Feng wrote:
>
> Currently, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode. While we can count
> how many dma-buf fds or mappings a process has, we can't get the size of
> the backing buffers or tell if two entries
Currently, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode. While we can count
how many dma-buf fds or mappings a process has, we can't get the size of
the backing buffers or tell if two entries point to the same dma-buf. And
in debugfs, we can get a per-buffer breakdown of size and reference count,
