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

Joao Martins
2023-10-17T19:03:58Z

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)

> 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