From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: amd_iommu fallback question Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:36:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20180405193612.GA12474@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Joerg Roedel Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Hi Joerg, I've got a little question on the amd_iommu code, hope you (or someone else on the list) can answer it. Most of the dma_map_ops methods have a fallback for the case when get_domain() return -EINVAL, which basically duplicates the normal no-iommu implementation, with the map_sg method being and exception that always returns and error (return value of 0 is an error for its calling convention). Is that an oversight? If yes so I wonder why it hasn't been caught yet. Or is the whole fallback code dead and can be removed?