On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jon Mason <jon.ma...@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:29:36PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Jon Mason <jon.ma...@intel.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:35:31PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >> >> Use the generic unmap object to unmap dma buffers. >> >> >> >> As NTB can be compiled without DMA_ENGINE support add >> > >> > Seems like the stubs should be added outside of this patch. >> >> I think they are ok here as this is the only driver that uses them. >> The alternative is a new api patch without a user. >> >> > Also, the >> > comment implies that NTB could not be compiled without DMA_ENGINE >> > support before, which it could be. >> >> Hmm, I read it as "since NTB *can* be compiled without dmaengine here >> are some stubs". > > This poses an overall question of whether it would simply be better to > abstract all of the with/without DMA_ENGINE part and simply remap it > to memcpy if DMA_ENGINE is not set (or if the DMA engine is > hotplugged). Of course, this is outside the scope of this patch.
That's at least the promise of async_memcpy() it does not care if a channel is there or not, but I think it is better if the client has a strict dma and non-dma path. Hiding the dma details from the client seems to have been the wrong choice at least for raid. > That is fine. It can be like this in the short term. > > Thanks, > Jon I'll take that as: Acked-by: Jon Mason <jon.ma...@intel.com> ...but holler if not. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
