On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:55:49AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
On 07/10/2021 14:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 01:43:00PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
@@ -1491,26 +1493,29 @@ static int efa_create_pbl(struct efa_dev *dev, return 0; }
-struct ib_mr *efa_reg_mr(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start, u64 length,
u64 virt_addr, int access_flags,struct ib_udata *udata)+static void efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach) +{
- WARN_ON_ONCE(1,
"Invalidate callback should not be called when memory is pinned\n");+}
+static struct dma_buf_attach_ops efa_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
- .allow_peer2peer = true,
- .move_notify = efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
+};
Shouldn't move_notify really just be left as NULL? I mean fixing whatever is preventing that?
That's what I had in the previous RFC and I think Christian didn't really like it.
Well, having drivers define a dummy function that only fails looks a lot worse to me. If not null then it should be a general 'dmabuf_unsupported_move_notify' shared function
- err = ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages(umem_dmabuf);
- if (err) {
ibdev_dbg(&dev->ibdev, "Failed to map dmabuf pages\n");goto err_unpin;- }
- dma_resv_unlock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv);
If it is really this simple the core code should have this logic, 'ib_umem_dmabuf_get_pinned()' or something
Should get_pinned do just get + dma_buf_pin, or should it do ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages as well?
Yes the map_pages too, a umem is supposed to be dma mapped after creation.
Jason