[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ba494d2-ad91-bc5c-2df8-b9d81c435211@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:36:35 +0200
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.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 2020-06-16 14:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> 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()?
fine with me
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists