[<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