From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:46:09 +1000
Subject: [RFC 0/8] Copy Offload with Peer-to-Peer PCI Memory
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4izLa2vw12ysvVfd=ysaMKcASNFm+=CaqDKhnPY9B5OJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPcyv4it56J8Voo6kV0bBcO3nHsOHYLENpAtONJZTGceDDwNPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1492381396.25766.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20170418164557.GA7181@obsidianresearch.com>
 <CAPcyv4izLa2vw12ysvVfd=ysaMKcASNFm+=CaqDKhnPY9B5OJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1492555569.25766.99.camel@kernel.crashing.org>

On Tue, 2017-04-18@10:27 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > FWIW, RDMA probably wouldn't want to use a p2mem device either, we
> > already have APIs that map BAR memory to user space, and would like to
> > keep using them. A 'enable P2P for bar' helper function sounds better
> > to me.
> 
> ...and I think it's not a helper function as much as asking the bus
> provider "can these two device dma to each other". The "helper" is the
> dma api redirecting through a software-iommu that handles bus address
> translation differently than it would handle host memory dma mapping.

Do we even need tat function ? The dma_ops have a dma_supported()
call...

If we have those override ops built into the "dma_target" object,
then these things can make that decision knowing both the source
and target device.

Cheers,
Ben.