lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
From
Date


On 2020-06-29 15:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:14:04 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-19 11:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:29:56 +0200
>>> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200
>>>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>>>>> if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
>>>>> + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
>>>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>>>>> + "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
>
> [Side note: wasn't there a patch renaming this bit on the list? I think
> this name is only kept for userspace compat.]

Sorry, I do not understand what you expect from me.
On which mailing list you think there is a patch on?

>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a
>>>> good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that
>>>
>>> Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in
>>> headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define
>>> and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn.
>>>
>>>> much. An alternative would be:
>>>> "virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory,
>>>> aborting the device"
>>>
>>> "virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ?
>>>
>>> But no issue with keeping the current message.
>>>
>>
>> If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to
>> accept or not the device.
>> The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch
>> specific.
>
> Hm, I'd think the reason is always the same (the device cannot access
> the memory directly), just the way to figure out whether that is the
> case or not is arch-specific, as with so many other things. No real
> need to go into detail here, I think.
>

As you like, so I rename the subject to:
"virtio: device does not work with limited memory access"

Regards,

Pierre


--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-29 23:29    [W:0.065 / U:10.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site