Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 05:36:56 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kmap_local semantics
Message-ID: <20210318043656.GA26988@lst.de>
References: <20210312065413.GA29805@lst.de> <20210312153646.GE3014244@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <878s6lzxsq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20210318024418.GX3014244@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210318024418.GX3014244@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 07:44:20PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Agreed.  I'm Sorry, I did not word the above clearly enough.  Let me rephrase
> that.
> 
> Christoph, do you anticipate additional need to call kmap and hand the mappings
> to other threads?  If not then kmap_local is what you should use.  If so, I'd
> like to know why.

No.  Just looking into callers that want a mapping and then synchronously
wait for I/O.