On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:20:12AM +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 24.06.19 um 16:41 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:58:00PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> Am 24.06.19 um 13:23 schrieb Koenig, Christian:
> >>> Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>>
>
Am 24.06.19 um 16:41 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:58:00PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 24.06.19 um 13:23 schrieb Koenig, Christian:
>>> Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>
So I pondered a few ideas while working out:
1) We drop this
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:58:00PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 24.06.19 um 13:23 schrieb Koenig, Christian:
> > Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >
> > > So I pondered a few ideas while working out:
> > >
> > > 1) We drop this filtering. Importer needs to keep track of all its
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:23:34AM +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> Your scenario here is new, and iirc my suggestion back then was to
> >>> count the number of pending mappings so you don't go around calling
> >>> ->invalidate on mappings that
Am 24.06.19 um 13:23 schrieb Koenig, Christian:
Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
So I pondered a few ideas while working out:
1) We drop this filtering. Importer needs to keep track of all its
mappings and filter out invalidates that aren't for that specific importer
(either
Am 21.06.19 um 18:27 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> Your scenario here is new, and iirc my suggestion back then was to
>>> count the number of pending mappings so you don't go around calling
>>> ->invalidate on mappings that don't exist.
>> Well the key point is we don't call invalidate on mappings,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:06:54PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 21.06.19 um 12:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:55 AM Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > Am 21.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 21.06.19 um 12:32 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:55 AM Christian König
wrote:
Am 21.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
[SNIP]
Imo the below semantics would be much cleaner:
- invalidate may add new
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:55 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 21.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> On the exporter side we add optional explicit pinning callbacks. If those
> >> callbacks are implemented the framework
Am 21.06.19 um 11:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
On the exporter side we add optional explicit pinning callbacks. If those
callbacks are implemented the framework no longer caches sg tables and the
map/unmap callbacks are always called
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> On the exporter side we add optional explicit pinning callbacks. If those
> callbacks are implemented the framework no longer caches sg tables and the
> map/unmap callbacks are always called with the lock of the reservation object
On the exporter side we add optional explicit pinning callbacks. If those
callbacks are implemented the framework no longer caches sg tables and the
map/unmap callbacks are always called with the lock of the reservation object
held.
On the importer side we add an optional invalidate callback.
On the exporter side we add optional explicit pinning callbacks. If those
callbacks are implemented the framework no longer caches sg tables and the
map/unmap callbacks are always called with the lock of the reservation object
held.
On the importer side we add an optional invalidate callback.
13 matches
Mail list logo