On 3/13/2018 6:48 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 13/03/18 04:29 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> If hardware doesn't support it, blacklisting should have been the right
>> path and I still think that you should remove all switch business from the
>> code.
>> I
On 3/13/2018 6:00 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 13/03/18 03:22 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> It sounds like you have very tight hardware expectations for this to work
>> at this moment. You also don't want to generalize this code for others and
>> address the s
On 3/13/2018 4:46 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 13/03/18 01:53 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> I agree disabling globally would be bad. Somebody can always say I have
>> ten switches on my system. I want to do peer-to-peer on one switch only. Now,
>> this change weak
On 3/13/2018 3:19 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 13/03/18 01:10 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> I was thinking of this for the pci_p2pdma_add_client() case for the
>> parent pointer.
>>
>> +struct pci_p2pdma_client {
>> +struct list_head list;
>>
at enabling this config
option implies you want P2P, then we can simplify this code as well.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project.
On 3/13/2018 12:43 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 12/03/18 09:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 3/12/2018 3:35 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Regarding the switch business, It is amazing how much trouble you went into
>> limit this functionality into very specific har
you had problems with and
yet still allow other architectures to use your code with their root ports?
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Colla
On 3/12/2018 9:55 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 3/12/2018 3:35 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> -if (nvmeq->sq_cmds_io)
>
> I think you should keep the code as it is for the case where
> (!nvmeq->sq_cmds_is_io && nvmeq->sq_cmds_io)
Never mind. I misunderstood th
tement here with the statement above.
> - memcpy_toio(&nvmeq->sq_cmds_io[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
> - else
> - memcpy(&nvmeq->sq_cmds[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
> + memcpy(&nvmeq->sq_cmds[tail], cmd, sizeof(*cmd));
>
--
Sinan Kay
-
Many devices can be memory mapped, and so appear to the CPU as if they're just
a set of memory locations. To control such a device, the driver usually has to
make the right memory accesses in exactly the right order.
However, having a clever CPU or a clever compiler cr
10 matches
Mail list logo
