[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200220161146.GA12709@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:11:46 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@...ux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: move force_dma_unencrypted() to mem_encrypt.h
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:05PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently force_dma_unencrypted() is only used by the direct
> implementation of the DMA API, and thus resides in dma-direct.h. But
> there is nothing dma-direct specific about it: if one was -- for
> whatever reason -- to implement custom DMA ops that have to in the
> encrypted/protected scenarios dma-direct currently deals with, one would
> need exactly this kind of information.
I really don't think it has business being anywhre else, and your completely
bogus second patch just proves the point.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists