[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200616142010.04b7ba19.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:20:10 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, mst@...hat.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without
IOMMU feature
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:52:50 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 2020-06-16 11:52, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:39:24 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> @@ -162,6 +163,11 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> >> return is_prot_virt_guest();
> >> }
> >>
> >> +int arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >
> > Maybe prefixing the name with virtio_ would help provide the
> > proper context.
>
> The virtio_dev makes it obvious and from the virtio side it should be
> obvious that the arch is responsible for this.
>
> However if nobody has something against I change it.
arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform()?
>
> >
> >> +{
> >> + return is_prot_virt_guest();
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /* protected virtualization */
> >> static void pv_init(void)
> >> {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists