On 5/16/19 10:35 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> Can I take it your reviewed/acked-by? or tested-by tag? for the virtio patch
> :)I don't feel that I have enough expertise to give the reviewed-by tag, but
> you can
take my acked-by + tested-by.
Acked-by: Jakub Staron
Tested-by: Jakub Staron
No kern
On 5/14/19 7:54 AM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> + if (!list_empty(&vpmem->req_list)) {
> + req_buf = list_first_entry(&vpmem->req_list,
> + struct virtio_pmem_request, list);
> + req_buf->wq_buf_avail = true;
> +
On 5/8/19 4:12 AM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/25/19 10:00 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> +void host_ack(struct virtqueue *vq)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int len;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + struct virtio_pmem_request *req, *req_buf;
>>> + struct virtio_pmem *vpmem = vq->vdev->priv;
>
On 4/25/19 10:00 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> +void host_ack(struct virtqueue *vq)
> +{
> + unsigned int len;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct virtio_pmem_request *req, *req_buf;
> + struct virtio_pmem *vpmem = vq->vdev->priv;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&vpmem->pmem_lock, flags)
From: Pankaj Gupta
Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:00 PM
> +static inline bool daxdev_mapping_supported(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + struct dax_device *dax_dev)
> +{
> + return !(vma->flags & VM_SYNC);
> +}
Shouldn't it be rather `return !(vma->vm_flags & VM_
