From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com (e28smtp02.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D6FC1A033A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:04:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp02.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:34:42 +0530 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29ADFE0053 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:35:44 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s5G74rHR38010970 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:34:53 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s5G74bF0026894 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:34:39 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code In-Reply-To: <20140616053209.GG23210@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> References: <1402543307-29800-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <87r42seyvg.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140616053209.GG23210@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:34:14 +0530 Message-ID: <87tx7lcp3l.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Gleb Natapov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alexander Graf , Michal Nazarewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minchan Kim , Paul Mackerras , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marek Szyprowski List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Joonsoo Kim writes: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:55:39PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Joonsoo Kim writes: >> >> > Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA >> > subsystem and the other is the kvm on powerpc. They have their own code >> > to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar. >> > From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side >> > wants to maintain bitmap not for 1 page, but for more size. Eventually it >> > use bitmap where one bit represents 64 pages. >> > >> > When I implement CMA related patches, I should change those two places >> > to apply my change and it seem to be painful to me. I want to change >> > this situation and reduce future code management overhead through >> > this patch. >> > >> > This change could also help developer who want to use CMA in their >> > new feature development, since they can use CMA easily without >> > copying & pasting this reserved area management code. >> > >> > v2: >> > Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, >> > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. >> > >> > Patch 1-5 prepare some features to cover ppc kvm's requirements. >> > Patch 6-7 generalize CMA reserved area management code and change users >> > to use it. >> > Patch 8-10 clean-up minor things. >> >> >> I wanted to test the ppc changes and found that the patch series doesn't apply >> against v3.15 . Do you have a kernel tree which I can clone to test this >> series ? > > This is based on linux-next -next-20140610. > And my tree is on following link. > > https://github.com/JoonsooKim/linux/tree/cma-general-v2.0-next-20140610 > > But, I think I'm late, because you have already added a Tested-by tag. linux-next kexec is broken on ppc64, hence I hand picked few of dependent patches for dma CMA on top of 3.15 and used that for testing. -aneesh