From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753329AbbCZVhr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:37:47 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:38816 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753308AbbCZVhm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:37:42 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,475,1422950400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="686254823"
Message-ID: <1427405861.29730.5.camel@theros.lm.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH 1/3] pmem: Initial version of persistent
 memory driver
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:37:41 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20150326143520.GB1557@lst.de>
References: <1427358764-6126-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
	 <1427358764-6126-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
	 <CAPcyv4hZs9F=0wNwpN4Vgvj0_YXUraA4L9oJqdOWT9p=a3n_nA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20150326143520.GB1557@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20.rez) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 15:35 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:12:23AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > +       struct resource *res_mem;
> > > +       int err;
> > > +
> > > +       res_mem = request_mem_region_exclusive(pmem->phys_addr, pmem->size,
> > > +                                              "pmem");
> > 
> > Isn't request_mem_region() enough?  i.e. it seems
> > request_mem_region_exclusive() assumes no DAX, at least in theory?
> 
> This is 1:1 from the patch Ross sent, but I've been wondering why
> request_mem_region_exclusive is used here.  All it does is setting the
> IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE flag, which prevents /dev/mem and sysfs from accessing
> the memory while the driver claims it. Besides pmem only a watchdog driver
> and e1000 make use of this flag, and there's various function related to
> it that are entirely unused.  It's a weird beast.

I don't have a compelling reason to use request_mem_region_exclusive()
over request_mem_region().  If the latter is cleaner I'm fine with the
change.