From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FA7C4332F for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 71EF06B0074; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6CE786B0075; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5BD566B0078; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3E76B0074 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA49A097C for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:25:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80035806270.04.F09D36D Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D29C140035 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:25:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666139153; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OeOa45B93JvYwgR1hDKpdl7iPLUwP3auE5S9Nrg+8/s=; b=goxk4O0ywAouGcPCh2vx7two0VfoAA19EfyOwSD/cKnyQUPcSI7k/FN/L8sjDVu+z0RnUe cO74Lg9y6euxkEt/t3MtC8C//2dz+ONoiaapUxcups6sua/lamn2sLGb0rV3mhzH4+G4ra Ve/cdg+CypVqaCTv0T++LMJSgK2xRyU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-520-OqOberSEOZ2v8-pjdQdPsw-1; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:25:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OqOberSEOZ2v8-pjdQdPsw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6830980280D; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:25:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-35.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE99C84426; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:25:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:25:42 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Christophe Leroy Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "hch@infradead.org" , "agordeev@linux.ibm.com" , "wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com" , "schnelle@linux.ibm.com" , "David.Laight@aculab.com" , "shorne@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] mm: ioremap: Convert architectures to take GENERIC_IOREMAP way (Alternative) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1666139154; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=OeOa45B93JvYwgR1hDKpdl7iPLUwP3auE5S9Nrg+8/s=; b=k4X0zsuMTS92DfZXWyXxUfTMrJHokKs0JXOLber8m8DX8YVwvvpsxsHciL2zabqbp6Sh7p izoKY4vaH1QkLqkS7GgIWB8EPfOPP5tI/2rDLObxDd0G/cxmy/5mmd31kMz7aUlQevDHTf dYUKFvpKaekpqsmi7UKL1/ez44W+rIM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf26.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=goxk4O0y; spf=pass (imf26.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1666139154; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=m3pgPaV4UuAt73e97h8RBT9HQPqejXPxo0ew4AqMekmtF0oXDodCDvWGxDsEA4fAxbKMuk 3bThMLRcatpTO5EyA1vP02DNoCDKDyPih+3hssjwebLJXpOW/gVHLrbDPdYBwX0XmMLtBE 142E1KY++K3Ku8vxXvvrDFaOGLIo+Zg= X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5D29C140035 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf26.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=goxk4O0y; spf=pass (imf26.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Stat-Signature: xsbpya1rs1gj8qpg3p3xmk4q77gsbgwd X-HE-Tag: 1666139154-169244 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 10/17/22 at 05:06pm, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Hi Baoquan, > > Le 17/10/2022 à 02:37, Baoquan He a écrit : > > Hi Christophe, > > > > On 10/12/22 at 12:09pm, Christophe Leroy wrote: > >> From: > >> > >> As proposed in the discussion related to your series, here comes an > >> exemple of how it could be. > >> > >> I have taken it into ARC and IA64 architectures as an exemple. This is > >> untested, even not compiled, it is just to illustrated my meaning in the > >> discussion. > >> > >> I also added a patch for powerpc architecture, that one in tested with > >> both pmac32_defconfig and ppc64_le_defconfig. > >> > >> From my point of view, this different approach provide less churn and > >> less intellectual disturbance than the way you do it. > > > > Yes, I agree, and admire your insistence on the thing you think right or > > better. Learn from you. > > > > When you suggested this in my v2 post, I made a draft patch at below link > > according to your suggestion to request people to review. What worried > > me is that I am not sure it's ignored or disliked after one week of > > waiting. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YwtND%2FL8xD+ViN3r@MiWiFi-R3L-srv/#related > > > > Up to now, seems people don't oppose this generic_ioremap_prot() way, we > > can take it. So what's your plan? You want me to continue with your > > patches wrapped in, or I can leave it to you if you want to take over? > > I don't plan to steal your work. If you feel confortable with my > proposal, feel free to continue with it and amplify it. You have done > most of the job, you have a clear view of all subtilities in the > different architectures, so please continue, I don't plan to take over > the good work you've done until now. > > The only purpose of my series was to illustrate my comments and convince > myself it was a possible way, nothing more. Thanks a lot for all these you have done, I will post another version with the introducing generic_ioremap_prot() way you suggesed.