From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] iommu: introduce device fault data Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 15:33:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1556062279-64135-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1556062279-64135-3-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <220a581e-0ee8-70e2-796b-b434594e4825@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <220a581e-0ee8-70e2-796b-b434594e4825@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Auger Eric , Jacob Pan , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , LKML , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Alex Williamson Cc: Yi L , "Tian, Kevin" , Raj Ashok , Andriy Shevchenko List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org 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 > > 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. Thanks, Jean From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FE7C43218 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0164420717 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:34:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0164420717 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from mail.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D641EA9; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B6851EA3 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:33:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027AA74A for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95696A78; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.129] (ostrya.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.129]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4AAB3F5AF; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] iommu: introduce device fault data To: Auger Eric , Jacob Pan , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , LKML , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Alex Williamson References: <1556062279-64135-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1556062279-64135-3-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <220a581e-0ee8-70e2-796b-b434594e4825@redhat.com> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 15:33:17 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <220a581e-0ee8-70e2-796b-b434594e4825@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Cc: Yi L , "Tian, Kevin" , Andriy Shevchenko , Raj Ashok X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Message-ID: <20190425143317.WsO9NyRqxrW-Jmzv1I3T0S9wNsU6pgjgM56vLimftLM@z> 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 > > 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. Thanks, Jean _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu