[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231224103225.GA31197@wunner.de>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 11:32:25 +0100
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 2/4] iommu/vt-d: don's issue devTLB flush request
when device is disconnected
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 12:06:55AM -0500, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> @@ -481,6 +481,9 @@ devtlb_invalidation_with_pasid(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
> if (!info || !info->ats_enabled)
> return;
>
> + if (pci_dev_is_disconnected(to_pci_dev(dev)))
> + return;
> +
> sid = info->bus << 8 | info->devfn;
> qdep = info->ats_qdep;
> pfsid = info->pfsid;
Do you even need this or is patch [4/4] sufficient?
Is there a benefit to the hunk above on top of patch [4/4]?
Thanks,
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists