[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 03/13] PCI/P2PDMA: Add PCI p2pmem DMA mappings to adjust the bus offset
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:13:21PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 2018-09-21 10:48 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> I think the use of "map" in this context is slightly confusing because the
> >> general expectation is that map/unmap must be balanced.
> Yeah, Jason said the same thing, but having an empty unmap function
> seems wasteful and Christoph said to just remove it. My opinion is that
> it's not that big an issue one way or another -- if we have to add an
> unmap later it's not really that hard.
> >> If you keep "map", maybe add a sentence or two about why there's no
> >> corresponding unmap?
> Will do.
> > Another wrinkle is that "map" usually takes an A and gives you back a
> > B. Now the caller has both A and B and both are still valid.
> > Here we pass in an SGL and the SGL is transformed, so the caller only
> > has B and A has been destroyed, i.e., the SGL can no longer be used as
> > it was before, and there's no way to get A back.
> I wouldn't say that. Our map_sg function is doing the same thing
> dma_map_sg is: it sets the DMA address and length in the scatter list.
> So B is still A just with other fields set. If the caller wanted to map
> this SG in a different way they can still do so and the new DMA
> address/length would override the old values. (Normally, you'd want to
> unmap before doing something like that, but seeing our unmap is an empty
> operation, we wouldn't have to do that.)

Ok. I was assuming s->dma_address would have been already set before
the call and would be overwritten by pci_p2pmem_map_sg(). But I guess
that's not the case -- sounds like s->dma_address is undefined before
the call.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-21 22:01    [W:0.096 / U:3.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site