lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove fullflush and nofullflush in IOMMU generic option
From
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:01:18 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:40:35AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:30:04 +0200
> > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:09:21AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please keep it for AMD option for now. Please send a patch to make it
> > > > generic to other IOMMU people and give them a chance to discuss on
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Btw, you already agreed with a generic iommu= parameter for lazy IO/TLB
> > > flushing"
> > >
> > >
> > > > True. We should merge common parameters across IOMMUs into the
> > > > iommu= parameter some time in the future, I think. It would also be the
> > > > place for the IOMMU size parameter.
> > >
> > > Hmm, now is better than the future? I think that now you can add
> > > something like 'disable_batching_flush' as a common parameter and
> > > change AMD IOMMU to use it.
> > >
> > > in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/17/376
> > >
> > > And since we already have a iommu=fullflush parameter it makes sense of
> > > make it generic.
> >
> > I'm not against fullflush but we need to discuss it with other people
> > before making the change.
>
> Weird. Just 2 hours ago you wrote:
>
> |http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/106
> |
> |For me, adding these boot parameters doesn't make sense.

See:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/221


> Anyway, I wrote to the Intel and Calgary developers and asked them for
> their opinion. If they have real objections I am the last person NACKing
> your original patch in this thread again.

I think that I already expressed a real objection for nofullflush
twice though I'm not the maintainer of any IOMMUs.


> The reason why I queued this patch in AMD IOMMU updates was that I
> didn't wanted to implement an option specificly for AMD IOMMU when there
> will be a generic one soon. This is double work I prefered to do it

You were not sure that they will be generic before discussion.


> right in the first step. The change does not break anything on Intel and
> Calgary.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-19 20:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site