Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/23] iommu: Refactor DMA domain strictness | From | John Garry <> | Date | Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:13:08 +0100 |
| |
On 21/07/2021 19:20, Robin Murphy wrote: > Hi all, > > First off, yes, this conflicts with just about everything else > currently in-flight. Sorry about that. If it stands up to initial review > then I'll start giving some thought to how to fit everything together > (particularly John's cleanup of strictness defaults, which I'd be > inclined to fold into a v2 of this series).
It seems to me that patch #20 is the only real conflict, and that is just a different form of mine in that passthrough, strict, and lazy are under a single choice, as opposed to passthrough being a separate config (for mine). And on that point, I did assume that we would have a different sysfs file for strict vs lazy in this series, and not a new domain type. But I assume that there is a good reason for that.
Anyway, I'd really like to see my series just merged now.
Thanks, John
> > Anyway, this is my take on promoting the strict vs. non-strict DMA > domain choice to distinct domain types, so that it can fit logically > into the existing sysfs and Kconfig controls. The first 13 patches are > effectively preparatory cleanup to reduce churn in the later changes, > but could be merged in their own right even if the rest is too > contentious. I ended up splitting patches #2-#11 by driver for ease of > review, since some of them are more than just trivial deletions, but > they could readily be squashed (even as far as with #1 and #12 too). > > I'm slightly surprised at how straightforward it's turned out, but it > has survived some very basic smoke testing for arm-smmu using dmatest > on my Arm Juno board. Branch here for convenience:
|  |