From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Honglei Huang <honghuan@amd.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
Cc: Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@amd.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
Xiaogang Chen <xiaogang.chen@amd.com>,
Oak Zeng <Oak.Zeng@amd.com>, Jenny Liu <Jenny-Jing.Liu@amd.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@amd.com>,
Honglei Huang <honglei1.huang@amd.com>,
Junhua Shen <Junhua.Shen@amd.com>, Yiru Ma <yiru.ma@amd.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Hellstrrrm <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM core header and VM integration
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:36:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49d20e9c-8f34-4409-8736-c4ecbe8ced3c@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9debc6fa-268b-49a7-9af6-20660bc2b1b3@amd.com>
On 8/25/26 09:42, Honglei Huang wrote:
> On 8/13/26 17:16, Huang, Honglei wrote:
...
> Hi Christian,
>
> Following up on my previous mail, I changed the change. The diff to the existing VM code is below.
>
> Does this look correct to you? for unify notifier lock and eviction lock.
That looks mostly correct to me, but I would change it quite a bit.
>
> diff:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_internal.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm_internal.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include "amdgpu_hmm.h"
> #include "amdgpu_vm.h"
> +#include "amdgpu_svm.h"
> @@ -66,6 +67,9 @@ struct amdgpu_vm_update_params {
> bool unlocked;
>
> + /** @svm_locked: caller already holds the drm_gpusvm notifier_lock */
> + bool svm_locked;
> +
Drop that, this approach is nonsense. The caller must always hold the drm_gpusvm lock.
> /**
> * @pages_addr:
> @@ -143,6 +147,30 @@
> +/* SVM VMs serialize eviction under the notifier_lock (write); others use eviction_lock. */
> +static inline void amdgpu_vm_eviction_lock(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
> +{
> + if (amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(vm))
> + down_write(&vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
I would either make the vm->svm mandatory or rename vm->eviction_lock to something like vm->notifier_lock and make it a pointer to the rw_semaphore which should be used.
Regards,
Christian.
> + else
> + mutex_lock(&vm->eviction_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void amdgpu_vm_eviction_unlock(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
> +{
> + if (amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(vm))
> + up_write(&vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
> + else
> + mutex_unlock(&vm->eviction_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool amdgpu_vm_eviction_trylock(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
> +{
> + if (amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(vm))
> + return down_write_trylock(&vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
> + return mutex_trylock(&vm->eviction_lock);
> +}
> +
> static inline int amdgpu_vm_begin_critical(struct amdgpu_vm_update_params *p)
> {
> + if (amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(p->vm)) {
> + if (p->svm_locked)
> + lockdep_assert_held(&p->vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
> + else
> + down_read(&p->vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
> + p->saved_flags = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
> + if (p->vm->evicting)
> + return -EBUSY;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> mutex_lock(&p->vm->eviction_lock);
> p->saved_flags = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
> if (p->vm->evicting)
> @@ static inline void amdgpu_vm_end_critical(struct amdgpu_vm_update_params *p)
> memalloc_noreclaim_restore(p->saved_flags);
> + if (amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(p->vm)) {
> + if (!p->svm_locked)
> + up_read(&p->vm->svm->gpusvm.notifier_lock);
> + return;
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&p->vm->eviction_lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> @@ amdgpu_vm_validate():
> - scoped_guard(mutex, &vm->eviction_lock)
> - vm->evicting = false;
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_lock(vm);
> + vm->evicting = false;
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_unlock(vm);
> @@ amdgpu_vm_ready():
> - scoped_guard(mutex, &vm->eviction_lock)
> - ret = !vm->evicting;
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_lock(vm);
> + ret = !vm->evicting;
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_unlock(vm);
> @@ amdgpu_vm_evictable():
> - scoped_cond_guard(mutex_try, return false, &vm->eviction_lock) {
> - if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(vm->last_unlocked))
> - return false;
> - vm->evicting = true;
> - }
> + if (!amdgpu_vm_eviction_trylock(vm))
> + return false;
> + if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(vm->last_unlocked)) {
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_unlock(vm);
> + return false;
> + }
> + vm->evicting = true;
> + amdgpu_vm_eviction_unlock(vm);
> return true;
> @@ amdgpu_vm_map_range() / amdgpu_vm_unmap_range(): /* +bool svm_locked param, params.svm_locked = svm_locked; non-SVM callers pass false */
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h
> @@ /* amdgpu_vm_map_range()/amdgpu_vm_unmap_range() declarations: +bool svm_locked */
>
> Regards,
> Honglei
>
>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Honglei
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The background is that XE uses a different page table allocation approach than amdgpu and we need to drop this lock in amdgpu to be able to allocate page tables. See function amdgpu_vm_pt_alloc().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that design here that currently doesn't work at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have two options, either use the drm_gpusvm notifier_lock as eviction_lock in amdgpu_vm.c or re-design amdgpu_vm.c to use the same approach for allocating page tables as XE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some engineer from Valve is working on re-designing amdgpu_vm.c, but that will potentially take month if not years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my take is that the new SVM code needs to modify amdgpu_vm.c so that the drm_gpusvm notifier_lock is used as eviction lock by the VM code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - driver_svm_lock: In addition to the locking mentioned above, the
>>>>>>> driver should implement a lock to safeguard core GPU SVM function
>>>>>>> calls that modify state, such as drm_gpusvm_range_find_or_insert and
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_remove.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two locks, two jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The lock held in the MMU notifier is notifier_lock, never driver_svm_lock
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_notifier_invalidate():
>>>>>>> down_write(&gpusvm->notifier_lock);
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> gpusvm->ops->invalidate(gpusvm, notifier, mmu_range);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The driver invalidate callback runs under notifier_lock only. Per the
>>>>>>> framework's own notifier example it just unmaps pages
>>>>>>> and queues the range to the garbage collector no allocation, and it
>>>>>>> does not take driver_svm_lock:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_unmap_pages(...);
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_set_unmapped(...);
>>>>>>> driver_garbage_collector_add(...);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) driver_svm_lock is by design an allocating, process context lock
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_find_or_insert() asserts it and then allocates under it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_find_or_insert():
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_driver_lock_held(gpusvm);
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> range = drm_gpusvm_range_alloc(...);
>>>>>>> ... mmu_interval_notifier_insert(), kzalloc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_remove() asserts it and frees. This is only safe
>>>>>>> because driver_svm_lock is a sleepable, reclaim friendly lock that is
>>>>>>> never taken from the MMU notifier. Reference counting
>>>>>>> handles range *lifetime*, but it does not
>>>>>>> serialize tree insert/remove, which is exactly why the framework still
>>>>>>> asserts driver_svm_lock on those two entry points regardless of refcount.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now the three concrete points:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) Why the primary driver_svm_lock is required
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a framework requirement, not an amdgpu invention:
>>>>>>> - DOC: Locking says the driver "should implement" it.
>>>>>>> - drm_gpusvm lockdep-asserts it on every structural entry:
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_find_or_insert() and drm_gpusvm_range_remove() both
>>>>>>> call drm_gpusvm_driver_lock_held().
>>>>>>> - The reference fault handler holds it across the whole fault:
>>>>>>> GC -> find_or_insert -> migrate -> get_pages -> bind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Xe does exactly this:
>>>>>>> - xe_svm.c: drm_gpusvm_driver_set_lock(&vm->svm.gpusvm, &vm->lock);
>>>>>>> - xe_pagefault.c: down_write(&vm->lock); before dispatching the fault
>>>>>>> - __xe_svm_handle_pagefault(): lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm- >lock);
>>>>>>> held across GC / find_or_insert / alloc_vram / get_pages / rebind
>>>>>>> - xe_svm_garbage_collector(): lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm- >lock);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> amdgpu's svm_lock is the same driver_svm_lock, used the same way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) Why eviction_lock cannot be that lock
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This lock eviction_lock can only be grabbed while updating the mapping range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and that is precisely why it cannot be driver_svm_lock.
>>>>>>> driver_svm_lock must wrap find_or_insert, migration, and
>>>>>>> drm_gpusvm_range_get_pages
>>>>>>> eviction_lock is the opposite by contract:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - It is taken with memalloc_noreclaim_save() in
>>>>>>> amdgpu_vm_begin_critical(), specifically so no reclaim happens while
>>>>>>> held (to avoid the reclaim -> MMU-notifier deadlock). Holding it
>>>>>>> across get_pages/migration breaks that.
>>>>>>> - TTM eviction try-locks it: amdgpu_vm_evictable() does
>>>>>>> scoped_cond_guard(mutex_try, return false, &vm- >eviction_lock) and
>>>>>>> sets vm->evicting. Long holds starve eviction.
>>>>>>> - It is a plain mutex that the SVM map path re-enters:
>>>>>>> amdgpu_svm_range_update_mapping() -> amdgpu_vm_map_range() ->
>>>>>>> amdgpu_vm_begin_critical() -> mutex_lock(&vm- >eviction_lock). If
>>>>>>> eviction_lock were also the outer SVM lock, this is a self- deadlock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, eviction_lock has the contract of notifier_lock , not of
>>>>>>> driver_svm_lock. This is also why the current split is correct:
>>>>>>> svm_lock (outer) != eviction_lock (inner). Your own rule - "you can't
>>>>>>> call the VM code with the lock held, the VM code must take it itself" -
>>>>>>> is satisfied today only because they are separate: svm_lock is held
>>>>>>> while calling amdgpu_vm_map_range(), and amdgpu_vm_map_range() takes
>>>>>>> eviction_lock itself. Merging them is what would violate that rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they Xe vm->lock and eviction_lock are actually identical in the handling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are not. Xe's vm->lock is a rw_semaphore, the "outer most lock" of
>>>>>>> the VM , held down_write across the whole fault. amdgpu's
>>>>>>> eviction_lock is a mutex taken only inside amdgpu_vm_begin_critical()
>>>>>>> during a PT update, under memalloc_noreclaim. Xe's eviction/ reclaim
>>>>>>> handling is separate from vm->lock. The amdgpu analogue of Xe's vm->lock
>>>>>>> is svm_lock, not eviction_lock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C) Reusing an existing amdgpu_vm lock as the primary lock needs refactor amdgpu VM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Xe can register vm->lock because Xe's VM was designed with an outer
>>>>>>> rw_semaphore held across faults. amdgpu_vm has no such lock: only
>>>>>>> eviction_lock , the root PD dma_resv , and a few spinlocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So do it like Xe means introducing a dedicated, outer, sleepable VM
>>>>>>> lock held across the fault. That lock is exactly svm_lock. Folding it
>>>>>>> into struct amdgpu_vm as a general vm->lock is a core amdgpu VM refactor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Honglei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_AMDGPU_SVM)
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_flush_tlb(struct amdgpu_svm *svm);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +int amdgpu_svm_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct amdgpu_vm *vm);
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_close(struct amdgpu_vm *vm);
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_fini(struct amdgpu_vm *vm);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_put(struct amdgpu_svm *svm);
>>>>>>>>> +struct amdgpu_svm *amdgpu_svm_lookup_by_pasid(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>>>>>>>> + uint32_t pasid);
>>>>>>>>> +int amdgpu_svm_handle_fault(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t pasid,
>>>>>>>>> + uint64_t fault_page, uint64_t ts,
>>>>>>>>> + bool write_fault);
>>>>>>>>> +bool amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(struct amdgpu_vm *vm);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +int amdgpu_gem_svm_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>>>>>>> + struct drm_file *filp);
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_clean_queue(struct amdgpu_svm *svm,
>>>>>>>>> + struct list_head *work_list);
>>>>>>>>> +void amdgpu_svm_sync_work(struct amdgpu_svm *svm);
>>>>>>>>> +int amdgpu_svm_garbage_collector(struct amdgpu_svm *svm);
>>>>>>>>> +int amdgpu_svm_apply_attr_change(struct amdgpu_svm *svm,
>>>>>>>>> + const struct amdgpu_svm_attrs *old_attrs,
>>>>>>>>> + const struct amdgpu_svm_attrs *new_attrs,
>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long start_page,
>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long last_page);
>>>>>>>>> +bool amdgpu_svm_devmem_possible(struct amdgpu_svm *svm);
>>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>>> +static inline int amdgpu_svm_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>>>>>>>> + struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static inline void amdgpu_svm_close(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static inline void amdgpu_svm_fini(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static inline int amdgpu_svm_handle_fault(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>>>>>>>> + uint32_t pasid,
>>>>>>>>> + uint64_t fault_page,
>>>>>>>>> + uint64_t ts,
>>>>>>>>> + bool write_fault)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static inline bool amdgpu_svm_is_enabled(struct amdgpu_vm *vm)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static inline int amdgpu_gem_svm_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>>>>>>> + struct drm_file *filp)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_DRM_AMDGPU_SVM */
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* __AMDGPU_SVM_H__ */
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h b/drivers/ gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h
>>>>>>>>> index ec1196d390bb7..30463a83e2e60 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.h
>>>>>>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ struct amdgpu_bo_va;
>>>>>>>>> struct amdgpu_job;
>>>>>>>>> struct amdgpu_bo_list_entry;
>>>>>>>>> struct amdgpu_bo_vm;
>>>>>>>>> +struct amdgpu_svm;
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> * GPUVM handling
>>>>>>>>> @@ -373,6 +374,9 @@ struct amdgpu_vm {
>>>>>>>>> /* cached fault info */
>>>>>>>>> struct amdgpu_vm_fault_info fault_info;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + /* SVM experimental implementation */
>>>>>>>>> + struct amdgpu_svm *svm;
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>> struct amdgpu_vm_manager {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-27 6:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 9:42 [PATCH v9 00/18] drm/amdgpu: AMDGPU SVM support based on DRM (Phase 1: single GPU, XNACK on) Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 01/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM ioctl UAPI definitions Huang Rui
2026-08-11 10:58 ` Christian König
2026-08-11 13:42 ` Huang, Honglei
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 02/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM core header and VM integration Huang Rui
2026-08-11 11:02 ` Christian König
2026-08-11 14:06 ` Huang, Honglei
2026-08-12 8:36 ` Christian König
2026-08-12 9:55 ` Huang, Honglei
2026-08-12 12:16 ` Christian König
2026-08-12 13:36 ` Huang Rui
2026-08-13 9:16 ` Huang, Honglei
2026-08-25 7:42 ` Honglei Huang
2026-08-27 6:36 ` Christian König [this message]
2026-08-27 7:12 ` Huang, Honglei
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 03/18] drm/amdgpu: implement SVM attribute tree and helper functions Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 04/18] drm/amdgpu: implement SVM attribute set/get/clear operations Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 05/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM range types and work queue interface Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 06/18] drm/amdgpu/gmc: add get_svm_pte_flags callback Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 07/18] drm/amdgpu: implement SVM range GPU mapping core Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 08/18] drm/amdgpu: implement SVM range notifier and GC helpers Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 09/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM notifier invalidate callback and checkpoint Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 10/18] drm/amdgpu: implement SVM initialization and lifecycle Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 11/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM ioctl entry and fault handler module Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 12/18] drm/amdgpu: integrate SVM into build system and VM fault path Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 13/18] drm/amdgpu: add VRAM migration infrastructure for drm_pagemap Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 14/18] drm/amdgpu: implement drm_pagemap SDMA migration callbacks Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 15/18] drm/amdgpu: implement synchronous TTM eviction for SVM BOs Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 16/18] drm/amdgpu: hook up ZONE_DEVICE registration in device init and reset Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 17/18] drm/amdgpu: add SVM range migration helpers for drm_pagemap Huang Rui
2026-08-04 9:42 ` [PATCH v9 18/18] drm/amdgpu: integrate VRAM migration into SVM fault and prefetch paths Huang Rui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49d20e9c-8f34-4409-8736-c4ecbe8ced3c@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=Jenny-Jing.Liu@amd.com \
--cc=Junhua.Shen@amd.com \
--cc=Oak.Zeng@amd.com \
--cc=Philip.Yang@amd.com \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=felix.kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=honghuan@amd.com \
--cc=honglei1.huang@amd.com \
--cc=lingshan.zhu@amd.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=xiaogang.chen@amd.com \
--cc=yiru.ma@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.