On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:47:54PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:32:07PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > > > > > > It doesn't boot with the patch. Won't it go > > > > > > > dma_get_required_mask > > > > > > > -> intel_get_required_mask > > > > > > > -> iommu_need_mapping > > > > > > > -> dma_get_required_mask > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the call to dma_get_required_mask in iommu_need_mapping be > > > > > > > replaced with dma_direct_get_required_mask on top of your patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > Actually my patch already calls dma_direct_get_required_mask. > > > > > How did you get the loop? > > > > > > > > The function iommu_need_mapping (not changed by your patch) calls > > > > dma_get_required_mask internally, to check whether the device's dma_mask > > > > is big enough or not. That's the call I was asking whether it needs to > > > > be changed. > > > > > > Yeah the attached patch seems to fix it. > > > > That looks fine to me: > > > > Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> > > Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take > it with a Tested-by: from me? If the former, I assume you're ok with me > adding your Signed-off-by? > > Thanks
A question on the original change though -- what happens if a single device (or a single IOMMU domain really) does want >4G DMA address space? Was that not previously allowed either?
