> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 12:36 AM
>
> To make way for a domain_alloc_paging conversion add the typical global
> static IDENTITY domain. This supports VMMs that have a
> VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS_CONFIG config.
>
> If the VMM does not have support then the domain_alloc
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 12:36 AM
>
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FSL_PAMU)
> struct iommu_domain *(*domain_alloc)(unsigned
> iommu_domain_type);
> +#endif
what about directly calling it as domain_alloc_fsl(), given no
more drivers can support it?
Reviewed-by: K
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 12:36 AM
>
> No driver implements SVA under domain_alloc() anymore, this is dead
> code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Lu Baolu
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian
On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > Hi Philipp,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +
Am 09.04.25 um 16:01 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>>> On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Philipp,
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200
> > Philipp Stanner wrote:
> >
> > > dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function
> > > were
> > >
On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 16:10 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 09.04.25 um 16:01 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 01:50:18PM +, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 1:45 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 05:59:08PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 43bb40c5b926 ("virtio_pci: Support surprise remova
On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200
> Philipp Stanner wrote:
>
> > dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function
> > were
> > intended for checking whether a fence is already signaled. Also the
> > boo
Hi Michael,
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 1:45 AM
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 05:59:08PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > This reverts commit 43bb40c5b926 ("virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of
> virtio pci device").
> >
> > The cited commit introduced a fix that m
Hi all,
I'm currently debugging a Nouveau issue [1] and potentially might want to
add a function that just checks whether a fence is signaled already –
which then would obviously be called dma_fence_is_signaled().
In any case, I think it is reasonable to rename dma_fence_is_signaled()
so that it
The documentation of the return value of dma_fence_check_and_signal()
and dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked() reads as if the returned boolean
only describes whether dma_fence_signal() (or similar) has been called
before this function call already. That's not the case, since
dma_fence_ops.signaled(
dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function were
intended for checking whether a fence is already signaled. Also the
boolean it returns hints at that.
The function's behavior, however, is more complex: it can check with a
driver callback whether the hardware's sequence number
13 matches
Mail list logo
