From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/16] PCI: Add pci_iomap_host_shared(), pci_iomap_host_shared_range() Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:49:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20211009003711.1390019-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20211009003711.1390019-13-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20211009053103-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <0e6664ac-cbb2-96ff-0106-9301735c0836@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Dan Williams , "Reshetova, Elena" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , "Lutomirski, Andy" , Bjorn Helgaas , Richard Henderson , Thomas Bogendoerfer , James E J Bottomley , Helge Deller , "David S . Miller" , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Paolo Bonzini , David Hildenbrand , Andrea Arcangeli , Josh Poimboeuf On 10/12/2021 12:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:57 AM Reshetova, Elena > wrote: >> >>> I suspect the true number is even higher because that doesn't include IO >>> inside calls to other modules and indirect pointers, correct? >> Actually everything should be included. Smatch has cross-function db and >> I am using it for getting the call chains and it follows function pointers. >> Also since I am starting from a list of individual read IOs, every single >> base read IO in drivers/* should be covered as far as I can see. But if it uses >> some weird IO wrappers then the actual list might be higher. > Why analyze individual IO calls? I thought the goal here was to > disable entire classes of ioremap() users? This is everything that would need to be moved somewhere else if we didn't disable the entire classes of ioremap users. -Andi