[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191128153646.GA29430@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:36:46 +0100
From: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Cc: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always
addressing limited
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:02:16AM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > We have a hard time handling that in generic code. Do we have any
> > good use case for SWIOTLB_FORCE not that we have force_dma_unencrypted?
> > I'd love to be able to get rid of it..
> >
> IIRC the justification for it is debugging. Drivers that don't do
> syncing correctly or have incorrect assumptions of initialization of DMA
> memory will not work properly when SWIOTLB is forced. We recently found
> a vmw_pvscsi device flaw that way...
Ok. I guess debugging is reasonable. Although that means I need
to repsin this quite a bit as I now need a callout to dma_direct.
I'll respin it in the next days.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists