[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190806054841.GA14197@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 07:48:41 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.linux@...il.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/16] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Don't use
dma_iommu_ops on secure guests
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:22:34AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> @@ -1318,7 +1319,10 @@ void iommu_init_early_pSeries(void)
> of_reconfig_notifier_register(&iommu_reconfig_nb);
> register_memory_notifier(&iommu_mem_nb);
>
> - set_pci_dma_ops(&dma_iommu_ops);
> + if (is_secure_guest())
> + set_pci_dma_ops(NULL);
> + else
> + set_pci_dma_ops(&dma_iommu_ops);
Shoudn't:
if (!is_secure_guest())
set_pci_dma_ops(&dma_iommu_ops);
be enough here, given that NULL is the default?
Also either way I think this conditional needs a comment explaining
why it is there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists