search for: driver_ops

Hi again all, It turns out that networking really wants ordered requests, which the previous patches didn't allow. This patch changes it to a callback mechanism; kudos to Avi. The downside is that locking is more complicated, and after a few dead ends I implemented the simplest solution: the struct virtio_device contains the spinlock to use, and it's held when your callbacks get

Hi again all, It turns out that networking really wants ordered requests, which the previous patches didn't allow. This patch changes it to a callback mechanism; kudos to Avi. The downside is that locking is more complicated, and after a few dead ends I implemented the simplest solution: the struct virtio_device contains the spinlock to use, and it's held when your callbacks get

Hi again all, It turns out that networking really wants ordered requests, which the previous patches didn't allow. This patch changes it to a callback mechanism; kudos to Avi. The downside is that locking is more complicated, and after a few dead ends I implemented the simplest solution: the struct virtio_device contains the spinlock to use, and it's held when your callbacks get

This is a subject that came up in the virtio BOF session at OLS. I decided to go forward and implement something that I like, based on the latest virtio proposal at the time, which was draft III. It's not a drop-in replacement, because it's missing a host implementation. I first started my own, which is not done yet, but wanted to do one for lguest and one for emulated PCI next. It's

This is a subject that came up in the virtio BOF session at OLS. I decided to go forward and implement something that I like, based on the latest virtio proposal at the time, which was draft III. It's not a drop-in replacement, because it's missing a host implementation. I first started my own, which is not done yet, but wanted to do one for lguest and one for emulated PCI next. It's

...const struct hmm_update *update); - }; - -The device driver must perform the update action to the range (mark range -read only, or fully unmap, etc.). The device must complete the update before -the driver callback returns. +registration of a mmu_interval_notifier:: + + mni->ops = &driver_ops; + int mmu_interval_notifier_insert(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni, + unsigned long start, unsigned long length, + struct mm_struct *mm); + +During the driver_ops->invalidate() callback the device driver must perform +the update action to the range (mark range read onl...

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> 8 of the mmu_notifier using drivers (i915_gem, radeon_mn, umem_odp, hfi1, scif_dma, vhost, gntdev, hmm) drivers are using a common pattern where they only use invalidate_range_start/end and immediately check the invalidating range against some driver data structure to tell if the driver is interested. Half of them use an interval_tree, the others

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> 8 of the mmu_notifier using drivers (i915_gem, radeon_mn, umem_odp, hfi1, scif_dma, vhost, gntdev, hmm) drivers are using a common pattern where they only use invalidate_range_start/end and immediately check the invalidating range against some driver data structure to tell if the driver is interested. Half of them use an interval_tree, the others