[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024111411-mating-granddad-11f6@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:27:13 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Joshua Peraza <jperaza@...gle.com>
Cc: rajatja@...gle.com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
dtor@...gle.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, helgaas@...nel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jean-philippe@...aro.org,
joro@...tes.org, jsbarnes@...gle.com, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
oohall@...il.com, pavel@...x.de, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
rafael@...nel.org, rajatxjain@...il.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/ACPI: Support Microsoft's "DmaProperty"
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:22:12PM +0000, Joshua Peraza wrote:
> This patchset rebases two previously posted patches supporting
> recognition of Microsoft's DmaProperty.
>
> Rajat Jain (2):
> PCI/ACPI: Support Microsoft's "DmaProperty"
> PCI: Rename pci_dev->untrusted to pci_dev->untrusted_dma
I thought we went through a lot of different choices when picking this
name, and explicitly did NOT use the "_dma" term here for a reason. Can
you go and read those old patch submissions to verify why we did so, and
what has changed since then and then document here what has changed to
allow this name change now?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists