From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com (Jerin Jacob) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:51:27 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: pci: add support for pci_mmap_page_range In-Reply-To: <29393988.imklgXkpJX@wuerfel> References: <1460581856-12380-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <10832709.SG7ma9Lsjb@wuerfel> <20160418145348.GA2342@localhost.localdomain> <29393988.imklgXkpJX@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20160418152126.GA3154@localhost.localdomain> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:00:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 18 April 2016 20:23:49 Jerin Jacob wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:15:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 18 April 2016 19:31:20 Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > Regarding existing user space applications, > > > > AFAIK, DPDK has the feature to support both /sysfs and vifo scheme. > > > > X11 uses only /sysfs scheme. > > > > > > > > IMO, Nothing wrong in providing this feature in arm64 kernel. > > > > Except arm64, almost all the major architecture has this support. > > > > > > My understanding was that it's considered deprecated and only > > > supported for backwards compatibility, but now I can't find any > > > indication of that in the source code and I don't know if that > > > is actually the case. > > > > > > I agree with Will that we should not expose the procfs interface, > > > it's just far too ugly. > > > > Me too agree with Will and I don't like it either. > > My point was, Irrespective of this change, the /proc/bus/pci/*/* entries > > will be created. i.e disabling /proc/bus/pci should be a seprate patch > > and it does not depend on this patch. > > The problem is that once we allow mmap() on proc/bus/pci/*/*, > it becomes much harder to prove that we are able to remove it > again without breaking stuff that worked. Why only to disable mmap() serivce in proc/bus/pci/*/*. Why not other services offered though proc/bus/pci/ like config space read, /proc/bus/pci/devices etc if a given platform not interested in proc fs then disable through CONFIG_PROC_FS in defconfig. I don't understand the logic behind disabling partial services that proc fs exposes. Jerin > > We have to decouple the sysfs interface from the procfs interface > before we allow the former. > > Arnd