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

Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2023-10-18T11:47:16Z

Hi Joao,

On 10/18/2023 5:04 AM, Joao Martins wrote:
> 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 could keep the code for now. It should not break anything
functionally. Then, once the check_feature() stuff is in place, we can
propose a follow up change to keep things consistent :)

Thanks,
Suravee