From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1B16B0292 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id b103so12032775wrd.9 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de. [5.9.137.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 63si9889522wrr.46.2017.06.19.10.18.28 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:18:20 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 26/34] iommu/amd: Allow the AMD IOMMU to work with memory encryption Message-ID: <20170619171820.tq4htttamb52pyx5@pd.tnic> References: <20170607191309.28645.15241.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20170607191745.28645.81756.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20170614174208.p2yr5exs4b6pjxhf@pd.tnic> <0611d01a-19f8-d6ae-2682-932789855518@amd.com> <20170615094111.wga334kg2bhxqib3@pd.tnic> <921153f5-1528-31d8-b815-f0419e819aeb@amd.com> <20170615153322.nwylo3dzn4fdx6n6@pd.tnic> <3db2c52d-5e63-a1df-edd4-975bce7f29c2@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3db2c52d-5e63-a1df-edd4-975bce7f29c2@amd.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tom Lendacky , =?utf-8?B?SsO2cmcgUsO2ZGVs?= Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Rik van Riel , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Toshimitsu Kani , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Matt Fleming , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Paolo Bonzini , Larry Woodman , Brijesh Singh , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dave Young , Thomas Gleixner , Dmitry Vyukov On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:33:41AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > Changing the signature back reverts to the original way, so this can be > looked at separate from this patchset then. Right, the patch which added the volatile thing was this one: 4bf5beef578e ("iommu/amd: Don't put completion-wait semaphore on stack") and the commit message doesn't say why the thing needs to be volatile at all. Joerg? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org