Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758919Ab1CCVxz (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:53:55 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:56137 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754614Ab1CCVxy (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:53:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:51:55 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [REVIEW] NVM Express driver Message-ID: <20110303215155.GA30451@kroah.com> References: <20110303204749.GY3663@linux.intel.com> <20110303211336.GA32645@kroah.com> <20110303214104.GZ3663@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110303214104.GZ3663@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3497 Lines: 84 On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:13:36PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt b/Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt > > > index 63ffd78..f8159ba 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt > > > @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ Code Seq#(hex) Include File Comments > > > 'M' 01-03 drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h > > > 'M' 00-0F drivers/video/fsl-diu-fb.h conflict! > > > 'N' 00-1F drivers/usb/scanner.h > > > +'N' 40-7F drivers/block/nvme.c > > > > I hate to ask this, but why do you have ioctls for this? At first > > glance, a number of the ioctls you have should just be sysfs files to > > export the information. What am I misunderstanding here? > > I don't think you're arguing for SUBMIT_IO being done through sysfs, so > some ioctls are clearly needed. I'll take a look at which ones can be > moved to sysfs. Heh, no, well, submit_io should just go through the block layer and not be a separate ioctl, right? > > > +static int nvme_download_firmware(struct nvme_ns *ns, > > > + struct nvme_dlfw __user *udlfw) > > > +{ > > > + struct nvme_dev *dev = ns->dev; > > > + struct nvme_dlfw dlfw; > > > + struct nvme_command c; > > > + int nents, status; > > > + struct scatterlist *sg; > > > + struct nvme_prps *prps; > > > + > > > + if (copy_from_user(&dlfw, udlfw, sizeof(dlfw))) > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > + if (dlfw.length >= (1 << 30)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + nents = nvme_map_user_pages(dev, 1, dlfw.addr, dlfw.length * 4, &sg); > > > + if (nents < 0) > > > + return nents; > > > + > > > + memset(&c, 0, sizeof(c)); > > > + c.dlfw.opcode = nvme_admin_download_fw; > > > + c.dlfw.numd = cpu_to_le32(dlfw.length); > > > + c.dlfw.offset = cpu_to_le32(dlfw.offset); > > > + prps = nvme_setup_prps(dev, &c.common, sg, dlfw.length * 4); > > > + > > > + status = nvme_submit_admin_cmd(dev, &c, NULL); > > > + nvme_unmap_user_pages(dev, 0, dlfw.addr, dlfw.length * 4, sg, nents); > > > + nvme_free_prps(dev, prps); > > > + return status; > > > +} > > > > Shouldn't you be using the build-in firmware kernel interface instead of > > rolling your own in an ioctl? > > There's a bit of an impedence mismatch there. Think of this as > being drive firmware instead of controller firmware. This isn't for > request_firmware() kind of uses, it's for some admin tool to come along > and tell the drive "Oh, here's some new firmware for you". That's fine, request_firmware will work wonderfully for that. > If you look at the spec [1], you'll see there are a number of firmware > slots in the device, and it's up to the managability utility to decide > which one to replace or activate. I dno't think you want to pull all > that gnarly decision making code into the kernel, do you? > > [1] http://download.intel.com/standards/nvmhci/NVM_Express_1_0_Gold.pdf No, just export multiple "slots" as firmware devices ready to be filled in by userspace whenever it wants/needs to. The management utility can just dump the firmware to those sysfs files when it determines it needs to update the firmware, no decision making in the kernel at all. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/