[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d3bc50f-beb3-dda8-dfaa-ecb4dcffd560@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:26:12 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"ashok.raj@...el.com" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...el.com" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"robdclark@...il.com" <robdclark@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] iommu: Add device fault reporting API
On 03/06/2019 22:59, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:57:45 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com> wrote:
>
>> Allow device drivers and VFIO to get notified on IOMMU translation
>> fault, and handle recoverable faults (PCI PRI). Several series require
>> this API (Intel VT-d and Arm SMMUv3 nested support, as well as the
>> generic host SVA implementation).
>>
>> Changes since v1 [1]:
>> * Allocate iommu_param earlier, in iommu_probe_device().
>> * Pass struct iommu_fault to fault handlers, instead of the
>> iommu_fault_event wrapper.
>> * Removed unused iommu_fault_event::iommu_private.
>> * Removed unnecessary iommu_page_response::addr.
>> * Added iommu_page_response::version, which would allow to introduce a
>> new incompatible iommu_page_response structure (as opposed to just
>> adding a flag + field).
>>
>> [1] [PATCH 0/4] iommu: Add device fault reporting API
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190523180613.55049-1-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com/
>>
>> Jacob Pan (3):
>> driver core: Add per device iommu param
>> iommu: Introduce device fault data
>> iommu: Introduce device fault report API
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Brucker (1):
>> iommu: Add recoverable fault reporting
>>
> This interface meet the need for vt-d, just one more comment on 2/4. Do
> you want to add Co-developed-by you for the three patches from me?
I'm fine without it, I don't think it adds much to the Signed-off-by,
which is required
Thanks,
Jean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists