On 28 Jul 2020, at 13:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:18:48PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
come after in the future.
Jonathan, I think we need to do a better job talking about patches
that are
just meant to enable possible users vs patches that we actually hope
the
upstream kernel to take. Obviously code that only supports out of
tree
drivers isn???t a good fit for the upstream kernel. From the point
of view
of experimenting with these patches, GPUs benefit a lot from this
functionality so I think it does make sense to have the enabling
patches
somewhere, just not in this series.
Sorry, but his crap is built only for this use case, and that is what
really pissed people off as it very much looks intentional.
No, we’ve had workloads asking for better zero copy solutions for
ages. The goal is to address both this specialized workload and the
general case zero copy tx/rx.
-chris
