[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240905162317.GU1358970@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:23:17 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org,
suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, eric.auger@...hat.com,
jean-philippe@...aro.org, mdf@...nel.org, mshavit@...gle.com,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, smostafa@...gle.com,
yi.l.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/19] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:59:53AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_nested_ops = {
> .get_msi_mapping_domain = arm_smmu_get_msi_mapping_domain,
> .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_nested,
> .free = arm_smmu_domain_nested_free,
> + .cache_invalidate_user = arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user,
> };
I think we should drop this op. The original intention was to do
things in parts to split up the patches, but it turns out this is
functionally useless so lets not even expose it to userspace.
So the patch can maybe be split differently and combined with the next
patch
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists