Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:11:00 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Takao Indoh <indou.takao@fujitsu.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        Takao Indoh <indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com>, axboe@fb.com,
        sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: Enable acceleration feature of A64FX processor
Message-ID: <20190214171100.GA473@lst.de>
References: <20190201124615.16107-1-indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com> <20190201145414.GA22199@localhost.localdomain> <20190205124757.GA28465@esprimo> <20190205143905.GG22199@localhost.localdomain> <20190205161347.GA847@lst.de> <20190213120358.GA3559@esprimo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190213120358.GA3559@esprimo>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:03:58PM +0900, Takao Indoh wrote:
> Ok, let me think about how I should change this patch.

Just drop it.

> I'm thinking that the problem of this patch is adding processor specific
> code into NVMe common driver, is this correct? Or another problem? It
> would be great if you could give me a hint to improve this patch.

For one it is processor / root port specific.  But even more importantly
it is incorrect.  If the device wants to issue a relaxed order
transaction it should do so all by itself, not by hacking around it
from the kernel.