[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76e35340-32c3-ee0d-5232-bd8800248402@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:03:28 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...el.com, alan.cox@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, pengfei.xu@...el.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] iommu/vt-d: Check whether device requires bounce
buffer
Hi,
On 4/23/19 12:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 09:17:17AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> +static inline bool device_needs_bounce(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
>> +
>> + if (intel_no_bounce)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + if (dev_is_pci(dev))
>> + pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
>> +
>> + return pdev ? pdev->untrusted : false;
>> +}
>
> Again, this and the option should not be in a specific iommu driver.
>
The option of whether bounce is ignored should be in the specific iommu
driver. Or any other thought?
Best regards,
Lu Baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists