[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2007151001140.4124@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>, jgross@...e.com,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-imx@....com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: introduce xen_vring_use_dma
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 10:23:22AM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Sorry for the late reply -- a couple of conferences kept me busy.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:34:53AM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Would you be in favor of a more flexible check along the lines of the
> > > > one proposed in the patch that started this thread:
> > > >
> > > > if (xen_vring_use_dma())
> > > > return true;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > xen_vring_use_dma would be implemented so that it returns true when
> > > > xen_swiotlb is required and false otherwise.
> > >
> > > Just to stress - with a patch like this virtio can *still* use DMA API
> > > if PLATFORM_ACCESS is set. So if DMA API is broken on some platforms
> > > as you seem to be saying, you guys should fix it before doing something
> > > like this..
> >
> > Yes, DMA API is broken with some interfaces (specifically: rpmesg and
> > trusty), but for them PLATFORM_ACCESS is never set. That is why the
> > errors weren't reported before. Xen special case aside, there is no
> > problem under normal circumstances.
>
> So why not fix DMA API? Then this patch is not needed.
It looks like the conversation is going in circles :-)
I tried to explain the reason why, even if we fixed the DMA API to work
with rpmesg and trusty, we still need this patch with the following
email: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=159347446709625&w=2
At that time it looked like you agreed that we needed to improve this
check? (https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=159363662418250&w=2)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists