[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200220163135.GA13192@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:31:35 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
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 05:23:20PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >From a users perspective it makes absolutely perfect sense to use the
> bounce buffers when they are NEEDED.
> Forcing the user to specify iommu_platform just because you need bounce buffers
> really feels wrong. And obviously we have a severe performance issue
> because of the indirections.
The point is that the user should not have to specify iommu_platform.
We need to make sure any new hypervisor (especially one that might require
bounce buffering) always sets it, as was a rather bogus legacy hack
that isn't extensibe for cases that for example require bounce buffering.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists