Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:07:20 -0700 | From | Jacob Pan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] iommu: introduce device fault data |
| |
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 15:33:17 +0100 Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> wrote:
> On 25/04/2019 14:21, Auger Eric wrote: > We could add a > >> IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PERM_VALID bit instead, but I still find > >> it weird to denote the validity of a bitfield using a separate bit. > >> > >> Given that three different series now rely on this, how about we > >> send the fault patches separately for v5.2? > > Sorry I meant v5.3 - after the merge window > > >> I pushed the recoverable fault > >> support applied on top of this, with the PERM_READ bit and cleaned > >> up kernel doc, to git://linux-arm.org/linux-jpb.git sva/api > > Sounds good to me. We need th READ perm. I will pick the fault reporting patches from this tree for my next rev. My plan is to add PRQ support for vSVA after the current series. > > my only concern is is it likely to be upstreamed without any actual > > user? In the positive, of course, I don't have any objection. > > Possibly, I don't think my I/O page fault stuff for SVA is likely to > get in v5.3, it depends on one or two more patch sets. But your > nested work and Jacob's one may be in good shape for next version? I > find it difficult to keep track of the same patches in three > different series. Same here, hard to track especially for minor tweaks. I am working towards the next version for vSVA page fault. Then I will look into converting VT-d native IO page fault to yours.
Thanks,
Jacob
| |