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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YJBHiRiCGzojk25U@phenom.ffwll.local> <CAHk-=wiwgOPQ+4Eaf0GD5P_GveE6vUHsKxAT=pMsjk1v_kh4ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <YJVijmznt1xnsCxc@phenom.ffwll.local> <CAHk-=wgjO8-f1bUwQB=5HGzkvSS+aGACR9+H5CkkDhRgud+3MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uELBbkhFBQoSfvMx+AKnbk-fgbamBm3sC20-dJwMq3Xmg@mail.gmail.com> <YJjg3DRnG1RG6VDK@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <YJjg3DRnG1RG6VDK@infradead.org>
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 17:29:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uFsRPod-tAJ8ZrzXM6B_+5VgvRs-U0_TiG75da62cnVnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL] topic/iomem-mmap-vs-gup
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:30 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 09:16:58AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > End result: not pulling it, unless somebody can explain to me in small
> > > words why I'm wrong and have the mental capacity of a damaged rodent.
> >
> > No rodents I think, just more backstory of how this all fits. tldr;
> > pin_user_pages is the only safe use of this vb2 userptr thing.
>
> Yes, which is why I advocate for just ripping the follow_pfn path
> out entirely.  It could have been used for crazy ad dangerous peer to
> peer transfers outside of any infrastructure making it safe, or for
> pre-CMA kernel memory carveouts for lage contiguous memory allocations
> (which are pretty broken by design as well).  So IMHO the only sensible
> thing is to remove this cruft entirely, and if it breaks a currently
> working setup (which I think is unlikely) we'll have to make sure it
> can work the proper way.

Since I'm not getting any cozy consenus vibes here on any option I
think I'll just drop this.

Stephen, can you pls drop

git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm topic/iomem-mmap-vs-gup

from linux-next? It's not going anywhere. I'll also go ahead and
delete the branch, to make sure you catch this update :-)

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch