[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190902072651.GA28587@lst.de>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:26:51 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        jacob.jun.pan@...el.com, alan.cox@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        pengfei.xu@...el.com,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/7] swiotlb: Zero out bounce buffer for untrusted
 device
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 09:58:27AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> The untrusted flag is introduced in another series. I agree that we
> could consider to move it to struct device, but I think making it
> in a separated patch looks better.
A separate patch is of course a good idea.  But it needs to happen
before we can use the flag in the swiotlb code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
