Re: [PATCH v3 17/19] iommu/amd: Access/Dirty bit support in IOPTEs

Joao Martins
2023-10-17T22:05:25Z

On 17/10/2023 20:03, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 17/10/2023 19:49, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:32:31PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
>>
>>> Jason, how do we usually handle this cross trees? check_feature() doesn't exist
>>> in your tree, but it does in Joerg's tree; meanwhile
>>> check_feature_on_all_iommus() gets renamed to check_feature(). Should I need to
>>> go with it, do I rebase against linux-next? I have been assuming that your tree
>>> must compile; or worst-case different maintainer pull each other's trees.
>>
>> We didn't make any special preparation to speed this, so I would wait
>> till next cycle to take the AMD patches
>>
>> Thus we should look at the vt-d patches if this is to go in this
>> cycle.
>>
>>> Alternatively: I can check the counter directly to replicate the amd_iommu_efr
>>> check under the current helper I made (amd_iommu_hd_support) and then change it
>>> after the fact... That should lead to less dependencies?
>>
>> Or this
>>
> I think I'll go with this (once Suravee responds)
>

Or just keep current code -- which is valid -- at this point and doesn't involve
replicating anything

>> We are fast running out of time though :)
>
> Yeah, I know :( I am trying to get this out tomorrow
>
> Still trying to get the AMD patches too, as that's the hardware I have been
> testing (and has more mass for external people to play around) and I also have a
> higher degree of confidence there.
>
> Joao