MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150729182712.GI30479@wotan.suse.de>
References: <20150725023649.8664.59145.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<20150725023842.8664.97620.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<20150726172527.GA29513@lst.de>
	<CAPcyv4igoopDPpcCRU1TNYdwPhiYdcDiRA7L9Jdian=0rtexRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150727051258.GB15836@lst.de>
	<CAPcyv4jN6jYzw11qOOR-xd_w6s5dguQSoHyvmPFSWtL9S+tz3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150729065004.GA17162@lst.de>
	<20150729182712.GI30479@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iAeMAmU1QRZ1=WTav0cg2=-gqzzrt3nMC1QoD1+hOeBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arch: introduce memremap()
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1571
Lines: 32

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:50:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > Oh, because all we have at this point is ioremap_cache() which
>> > silently falls back.  It's not until the introduction of
>> > arch_memremp() where we update the arch code to break that behavior.
>>
>> Ok, makes sense.  Might be worth to document in the changelog.
>>
>> > That said, I think it may be beneficial to allow a fallback if the
>> > user cares.  So maybe memremap() can call plain ioremap() if
>> > MEMREMAP_STRICT is not set and none of the other mapping types are
>> > satisfied.
>>
>> Is there a real use case for it?  Fallback APIs always seem confusing
>> and it might make more sense to do this in the caller(s) that actually
>> need it.
>
> It seems semantics-wise we are trying to separate these two really, so I agree
> with this. Having a fallback would onloy make things more complicated for any
> sanitizer / checker / etc, and I don't think the practical gains of having a
> fallback outweight the gains of having a clear semantic separation on intended
> memory type and interactions with it.
>

Yup, consider it dropped.  Drivers that want fallback behavior can do
it explicitly.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/