Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] Userspace P2PDMA with O_DIRECT NVMe devices

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 05:28:38PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021-09-29 5:21 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:50:02PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021-09-28 2:02 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 05:40:40PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> This patchset continues my work to add userspace P2PDMA access using
> >>>> O_DIRECT NVMe devices. My last posting[1] just included the first 13
> >>>> patches in this series, but the early P2PDMA cleanup and map_sg error
> >>>> changes from that series have been merged into v5.15-rc1. To address
> >>>> concerns that that series did not add any new functionality, I've added
> >>>> back the userspcae functionality from the original RFC[2] (but improved
> >>>> based on the original feedback).
> >>>
> >>> I really think this is the best series yet, it really looks nice
> >>> overall. I know the sg flag was a bit of a debate at the start, but it
> >>> serves an undeniable purpose and the resulting standard DMA APIs 'just
> >>> working' is really clean.
> >>
> >> Actually, so far, nobody has said anything negative about using the SG flag.
> >>
> >>> There is more possible here, we could also pass the new GUP flag in the
> >>> ib_umem code..
> >>
> >> Yes, that would be very useful.
> > 
> > You might actually prefer to do that then the bio changes to get the
> > infrastructur merged as it seems less "core"
> 
> I'm a little bit more concerned about my patch set growing too large.
> It's already at 20 patches and I think I'll need to add a couple more
> based on the feedback you've already provided. So I'm leaning toward
> pushing more functionality as future work.

I mean you could postpone the three block related patches and use a
single ib_umem patch instead as the consumer.

Jason