Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-27 Thread h...@lst.de
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:39:18PM +, Williams, Dan J wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:46 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > > Given that: > > > > > > 1/ device ->remove() can not be failed > > > > > > 2/ a pmem device may

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-27 Thread h...@lst.de
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:39:18PM +, Williams, Dan J wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:46 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: Given that: 1/ device -remove() can not be failed 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-26 Thread Williams, Dan J
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:46 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > Given that: > > > > 1/ device ->remove() can not be failed > > > > 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time > > > > 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > Given that: > > 1/ device ->remove() can not be failed > > 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time > > 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel are actively using a >'struct page' from devm_memremap_pages() > >

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-26 Thread Williams, Dan J
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:46 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: Given that: 1/ device -remove() can not be failed 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel are actively

Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:28:13PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: Given that: 1/ device -remove() can not be failed 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel are actively using a 'struct page' from devm_memremap_pages() ...provide a

[PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-25 Thread Dan Williams
Given that: 1/ device ->remove() can not be failed 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel are actively using a 'struct page' from devm_memremap_pages() ...provide a facility for active usages of device memory to block pmem device unbind.

[PATCH v2 9/9] devm_memremap_pages: protect against pmem device unbind

2015-08-25 Thread Dan Williams
Given that: 1/ device -remove() can not be failed 2/ a pmem device may be unbound at any time 3/ we do not know what other parts of the kernel are actively using a 'struct page' from devm_memremap_pages() ...provide a facility for active usages of device memory to block pmem device unbind.