[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fad3abe8-f69f-1339-7bca-e0283f9182d5@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:11:15 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] iommu/vt-d: Remove commented code
On 2/16/22 11:45 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Christoph Hellwig<hch@....de>
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:34 PM
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:57:02AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> This removes unnecessary commented code.
>> Removing dead code is always good:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig<hch@....de>
>>
>> But someone might really want to take a look if draining makes sense here
>> or not.
> Looks that dead code has been there since intel-iommu driver was
> firstly introduced in 2007. I don't know whether we can dig out
> the reason (Baolu, can you have a check?) why it's only special
> cased for read draining but not write draining. I cannot find any
> such recommendation from VT-d spec.
Emm, I have no idea either. Let me check it with the architecture
experts.
>
> Looking at VT-d spec it stated that since VT-d major version 2
> drain is conducted automatically by hardware and above flags
> are essentially ignored.
>
> Given that possibly a safer option is to always set read/write
> draining flags before version 2 and skip it after.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists