From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Cc: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
"thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"christian.koenig@amd.com" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:51:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191128075153.GD20659@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a95d9115fc2a80de2f97f001bbcd9aba6636e685.camel@vmware.com>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:22:57PM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > + if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
> > + return true;
> > return min_not_zero(dma_get_mask(dev), dev->bus_dma_limit) <
> > dma_get_required_mask(dev);
> > }
>
> Any chance to have the case
>
> (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE)
>
> also included?
We have a hard time handling that in generic code. Do we have any
good use case for SWIOTLB_FORCE not that we have force_dma_unencrypted?
I'd love to be able to get rid of it..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-28 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-27 14:40 make dma_addressing_limited work for memory encryption setups Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 14:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: move dma_addressing_limited out of line Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 17:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-27 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 18:22 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2019-11-28 7:51 ` hch [this message]
2019-11-28 8:02 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2019-11-28 15:36 ` hch
2019-12-04 13:03 make dma_addressing_limited work for memory encryption setups v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-12-04 13:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited Christoph Hellwig
2019-12-06 14:10 ` Thomas Hellstrom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191128075153.GD20659@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=thellstrom@vmware.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox