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: <20210902020129.25952-1-rdunlap@infradead.org> <9faacbc8-3346-8033-5b4d-60543eae959e@cambridgegreys.com>
 <f978cae5-7275-6780-8a17-c6e61247bce7@infradead.org> <0887903c-483d-49c7-0d35-f59be2f85bac@cambridgegreys.com>
 <YTDjlixwDWi7Y2uR@phenom.ffwll.local>
In-Reply-To: <YTDjlixwDWi7Y2uR@phenom.ffwll.local>
From:   David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 4 Sep 2021 11:50:37 +0800
Message-ID: <CABVgOSnvW_H03KjXxK5=j0ApEPh-Me3RxMF9QGFFT3kEtXJ65Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: provide default page protection for UML
To:     Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=C3=B6m?= 
        <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:46 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:19:01AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > On 02/09/2021 06:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 9/1/21 10:48 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > > > On 02/09/2021 03:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > boot_cpu_data [struct cpuinfo_um (on UML)] does not have a struct
> > > > > member named 'x86', so provide a default page protection mode
> > > > > for CONFIG_UML.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mends this build error:
> > > > > ../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c: In function
> > > > > =E2=80=98ttm_prot_from_caching=E2=80=99:
> > > > > ../drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c:59:24: error: =E2=80=98struct
> > > > > cpuinfo_um=E2=80=99 has no member named =E2=80=98x86=E2=80=99
> > > > >    else if (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 3)
> > > > >                          ^
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 3bf3710e3718 ("drm/ttm: Add a generic TTM memcpy move for
> > > > > page-based iomem")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> > > > > Cc: Thomas Hellstr=C3=B6m <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Christian K=C3=B6nig <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > > > Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
> > > > > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > > Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
> > > > > Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> > > > > Cc: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
> > > > > Cc: linux-um@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c |    4 ++++
> > > > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- linux-next-20210901.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c
> > > > > +++ linux-next-20210901/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_module.c
> > > > > @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ pgprot_t ttm_prot_from_caching(enum ttm_
> > > > >       if (caching =3D=3D ttm_cached)
> > > > >           return tmp;
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UML
> > > > > +    tmp =3D pgprot_noncached(tmp);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > >   #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> > > > >       if (caching =3D=3D ttm_write_combined)
> > > > >           tmp =3D pgprot_writecombine(tmp);
> > > > > @@ -69,6 +72,7 @@ pgprot_t ttm_prot_from_caching(enum ttm_
> > > > >   #if defined(__sparc__)
> > > > >       tmp =3D pgprot_noncached(tmp);
> > > > >   #endif
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > >       return tmp;
> > > > >   }
> > > >
> > > > Patch looks OK.
> > > >
> > > > I have a question though - why all of DRM is not !UML in config. No=
t
> > > > like we can use them.
> > >
> > > I have no idea about that.
> > > Hopefully one of the (other) UML maintainers can answer you.
> >
> > Touche.
> >
> > We will discuss that and possibly push a patch to !UML that part of the
> > tree. IMHO it is not applicable.
>
> I thought kunit is based on top of uml, and we do want to eventually adop=
t
> that. Especially for helper libraries like ttm.

UML is not actually a dependency for KUnit, so it's definitely
possible to test things which aren't compatible with UML. (In fact,
there's even now some tooling support to use qemu instead on a number
of architectures.)

That being said, the KUnit tooling does use UML by default, so if it's
not too difficult to keep some level of UML support, it'll make it a
little easier (and faster) for people to run any KUnit tests.

Cheers,
-- David