lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 26/34] iommu/amd: Allow the AMD IOMMU to work with memory encryption
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:41:12AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > > WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
> > > #134: FILE: drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c:866:
> > > +static void build_completion_wait(struct iommu_cmd *cmd, volatile u64 *sem)
> > >
> >
> > The semaphore area is written to by the device so the use of volatile is
> > appropriate in this case.
>
> Do you mean this is like the last exception case in that document above:
>
> "
> - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be modified
> by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. A ring buffer
> used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
> indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of this
> type of situation."
>
> ?

So currently (without this patch) the build_completion_wait function
does not take a volatile parameter, only wait_on_sem() does.

Wait_on_sem() needs it because its purpose is to poll a memory location
which is changed by the iommu-hardware when its done with command
processing.

But the 'volatile' in build_completion_wait() looks unnecessary, because
the function does not poll the memory location. It only uses the
pointer, converts it to a physical address and writes it to the command
to be queued.


Regards,

Joerg

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-21 18:35    [W:0.694 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site