From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA16166F3 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 12:18:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4MJxkg4gLFz6J69C; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 20:17:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) by fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.31; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 14:18:32 +0200 Received: from [10.195.34.23] (10.195.34.23) by lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:18:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:18:29 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes From: John Garry To: , , CC: , References: <1660730984-30333-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <11d9f054-fe7b-7646-a8f4-7d45a22e2a96@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <11d9f054-fe7b-7646-a8f4-7d45a22e2a96@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.195.34.23] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) To lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected On 17/08/2022 11:24, John Garry wrote: > On 17/08/2022 11:09, John Garry wrote: >> This series includes: >> - remove checks in the code which are not required >> - the re-org, which I had originally posted separately > > BTW, Can we drop the !IOMMU_IOVA stubs in iova.h? I could not find a > kernel config which actually exercises that code (so testing changes > there is difficult). Any thoughts on this? Since I got no review of patch #3 I assume that it is not keenly welcome either. Now I think that I'll just post a new version with patches #1 and #2 so that they don't get lost in limbo. Thanks, John