From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9225EA934 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724378883; cv=none; b=SU35NXSnkLrcmlia19Qd0zNV9p6bZ3eaGY/1h++77Z4txBnU86x+3e5Jfeb0HhICePxQXmtYc3PQjktxadlfqN3oUHN4HssRqUd6Pdys/bouvsCbGbvRhyoKu9DgQjOmrenJtWM9+luU+9jACjh4P8+2RDQ0iMHHCdxRjGvKwpI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724378883; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/uTfRhhPb0PeT5OfPqqz6WsG14q0H3SJgfpdxwTiSUo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=O0yvVo3ne31J9UFxw6w8o4Yky2dvuB7xjhBVghYXzp7UpgmJgmt/b7yxFgtI3PTVugO9x/puJvbpC4vD72zUBVy47ohqRbjr46NATCf3rEommqi5zEHlvQ9m0FCna2WDFN0qv0fM8wOa5e+bgT0Vvu4sQbrSh3JM6WN5eeM2gmw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=bL3dsPdU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="bL3dsPdU" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1724378881; x=1755914881; h=message-id:date:mime-version:cc:subject:to:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/uTfRhhPb0PeT5OfPqqz6WsG14q0H3SJgfpdxwTiSUo=; b=bL3dsPdUHaPpnncCCoLzn7nrt+VYl4jL0F8STbt+StebbLcd7m53iRnX /MKrVSsLThppdRVMPENV2BlI96YZ2zNuMT3UbMKjmz8dW2PVx29AKHvwe ir5gHzU0wLWI5w0F8H4jwkyidX/8L/mauMXu+LfersyWBGVDADaVFSQ7q DiJClW06SKOB6B8oYPCa/i8dljW6neB/UJp7Hdu2uzSu6OaCa2Dtmd1Ts LSOpMqsRwXx5NV4PYbucZINEYXzA2RcDWP9PkJGXpYChHQygJ9EYT9vba 9FF8K9SkXIsBjG5078J2qpzxEqFJX9iJRDAndwhcuyc1HxWUqT9g2axgp g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: OC6/UCvRQymkKqpqUcHe1Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: iiojyN3ORsWYwGFUsRp7Tg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11172"; a="33494483" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,168,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="33494483" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Aug 2024 19:08:01 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: wWDZqf7dRZibPmp6u754vw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: lmfjIZpwTD+4ADj+DC9GMw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,168,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="66474015" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.127]) ([10.239.159.127]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2024 19:07:58 -0700 Message-ID: <16249f39-e148-40d4-91f4-af9147a5f56b@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:04:17 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Vasant Hegde , iommu@lists.linux.dev, joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Enhance domain allocation code to take additional flags To: Jason Gunthorpe References: <20240821133554.7405-1-vasant.hegde@amd.com> <20240821133554.7405-2-vasant.hegde@amd.com> <20240822124021.GB3468552@ziepe.ca> Content-Language: en-US From: Baolu Lu In-Reply-To: <20240822124021.GB3468552@ziepe.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/22/24 8:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > >>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_paging_domain_alloc); >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_paging_domain_alloc_flags); >> Some external modules are still using iommu_paging_domain_alloc(). Would >> it break the kernel build if you simply remove it here? > modules have to be recompiled if the kernel is changed, they will pick > up the inline in the header and shift to this API. But generally we > don't worry about external/out of tree modules.. I see. I overlooked below inline helper. +static inline struct iommu_domain *iommu_paging_domain_alloc(struct device *dev) +{ + return iommu_paging_domain_alloc_flags(dev, 0); +} Thanks, baolu