[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200310184740.GA9745@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:47:41 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Singh, Brijesh" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
"Grimm, Jon" <jon.grimm@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
baekhw@...gle.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc 5/6] dma-direct: atomic allocations must come from
unencrypted pools
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:36:07PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> As a preliminary change to this series, I could move the atomic pools and
> coherent_pool command line to a new kernel/dma/atomic_pools.c file with a
> new CONFIG_DMA_ATOMIC_POOLS that would get "select"ed by CONFIG_DMA_REMAP
> and CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT and call into dma_common_contiguous_remap() if
> we have CONFIG_DMA_DIRECT_REMAP when adding pages to the pool.
Yes. Although I'd just name it kernel/dma/pool.c and
CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL or so, as I plan to reuse the code for
architectures that just preallocate all coherent memory at boot time
as well.
> I think that's what you mean by splitting the pool from remapping,
> otherwise we still have a full CONFIG_DMA_REMAP dependency here. If you
> had something else in mind, please let me know. Thanks!
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists