Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor to separate core P2P functionality from memory allocation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 03:00:32PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> But then later in patch 8/ and again in 10/ why exactly do we cache
> the provider on the vfio_pci_core_device rather than ask for it on
> demand from the p2pdma?

It makes the most sense if the P2P is activated once during probe(),
it is just a cheap memory allocation, so no reason not to.

If you try to do it on-demand then it will require more locking.

> It also seems like the coordination of a valid provider is ad-hoc
> between p2pdma and vfio-pci.  For example, this only fills providers
> for MMIO BARs and vfio-pci validates that dmabuf operations are for
> MMIO BARs, but it would be more consistent if vfio-pci relied on p2pdma
> to give it a valid provider for a given BAR.  Thanks,

Yeah, validate_dmabuf_input() should check
priv->vdev->provider[priv->bar] for NULL and I think we should
directly store the non-NUL: provider in the dmabuf priv struct instead
of the bar index and replace these:

+       provider = priv->vdev->provider[priv->bar];
+       provider = priv->vdev->provider[priv->bar];

Jason




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux