Re: [PATCH 00/10] HMM updates for 5.1
From: Jerome Glisse
Date: Tue Mar 19 2019 - 13:18:54 EST
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:12:49AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:58:02 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > So I think I'll throw up my hands, drop them all and shall await
> > > developments :(
> > What more do you want to see ? I can repost with the ack already given
> > and the improve commit wording on some of the patch. But from user point
> > of view nouveau is already upstream, ODP RDMA depends on this patchset
> > and is posted and i have given link to it. amdgpu is queue up. What more
> > do i need ?
> I guess I can ignore linux-next for a few days.
> Yes, a resend against mainline with those various updates will be
> helpful. Please go through the various fixes which we had as well:
Yes i will not forget them and i will try to get more config build
to be sure there is not issue. I need to register a tree with the
rand-config builder but i lack place where i can host a https tree
(i believe this is a requirement).
> Also, the discussion regarding [07/10] is substantial and is ongoing so
> please let's push along wth that.
I can move it as last patch in the serie but it is needed for ODP RDMA
convertion too. Otherwise i will just move that code into the ODP RDMA
code and will have to move it again into HMM code once i am done with
the nouveau changes and in the meantime i expect other driver will want
to use this 2 helpers too.
> What is the review/discussion status of "[PATCH 09/10] mm/hmm: allow to
> mirror vma of a file on a DAX backed filesystem"?
I explained that this is needed for the ODP RDMA convertion as ODP RDMA
does supported DAX today and thus i can not push that convertion without
that support as otherwise i would regress RDMA ODP.
Also this is to be use by nouveau which is upstream and there is no
reasons to not support vma that happens to be mmap of a file on a file-
system that is using a DAX block device.
I do not think Dan had any comment code wise, i think he was complaining
about the wording of the commit not being clear and i proposed an updated
wording that he seemed to like.