On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:55:20 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:08:18PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > I'm confused. If you're not a big fan, why are we effectively adding
> > them to more places now than before the patch?
>
> Because I
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:18:12 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:10:13AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Tesarik
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > OK, so __swiotlb_find_pool() is now always declared (so the code
> > compiles),
Rework swiotlb_find_pool() to use IS_ENABLED() instead of #ifdef's.
> To make this work, move dma_uses_io_tlb field in struct device out from
> under #ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC. [Christoph Hellwig]
> * Fix line lengths > 80 chars [Christoph Hellwig]
> * Update commit messag
uot; doesn't work because the dma_uses_io_tlb
> field in struct dev is under CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC. I guess
> it could be moved out, but that's going further afield. So I'm back
> to using #ifdef.
>
> > smp_rmb();
> > if (!READ_ONCE(dev-&g
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:36:15 +0200
"h...@lst.de" wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 02:02:52PM +, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > 1) Rename is_swiotlb_buffer() to swiotlb_find_pool(), since it
> > now returns a pool. A NULL return value indicates that the
> > paddr is not an swiotlb buffer.
> >
> >
V Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:01:29 +0200
"h...@lst.de" napsáno:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 04:02:59PM +, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > > > Conceptually, it's still being used as a boolean function based on
> > > > whether the return value is NULL. Renaming it to swiotlb_get_pool()
> > > > more accuratel
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:14:21 -0700
mhkelle...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley
>
> With CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC enabled, each round-trip map/unmap pair
> in the swiotlb results in 6 calls to swiotlb_find_pool(). In multiple
> places, the pool is found and used in one function, and then mus
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:02:51 +0200
"h...@lst.de" wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:58:13PM +, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > > This patch trades off making many of the core swiotlb APIs take
> > > an additional argument in order to avoid duplicating calls to
> > > swiotlb_find_pool(). The curren
V Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:11:42 -0700
mhkelle...@gmail.com napsáno:
> From: Michael Kelley
>
> iommu_dma_map_page() allocates swiotlb memory as a bounce buffer when
> an untrusted device wants to map only part of the memory in an
> granule. The goal is to disallow the untrusted device having
> DMA a
On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:14:05 +
Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: mhkelle...@gmail.com
> >
>
> Gentle ping ...
>
> Anyone interested in reviewing this series of two patches? It fixes
> an edge case bug in the size of the swiotlb request coming from
> dma-iommu, and plugs a hole that allows u
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:03:30 +
Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Petr Tesařík Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:50 AM
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:23:22 +
> > Michael Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > From: Petr Tesařík Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:46
&
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:23:22 +
Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Petr Tesařík Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:46 AM
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > sorry for taking so long to answer. Yes, there was no agreement on the
> > removal of the "dir"
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:11:41 -0700
mhkelle...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley
>
> Currently swiotlb_tbl_map_single() takes alloc_align_mask and
> alloc_size arguments to specify an swiotlb allocation that is
> larger than mapping_size. This larger allocation is used solely
> by iommu_dma
Hi all,
sorry for my late reply; I've been away from my work setup for a
month...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 08:55:51 -0600
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> So it seems this code got merged without this question ever being
> answered. Sorry if it's a dumb one, but I don't think this
> functionality works as
V Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:04:09 +0200
Christoph Hellwig napsáno:
> I was just going to apply this, but patch 1 seems to have a non-trivial
> conflict with the is_swiotlb_active removal in pci-dma.c. Can you resend
> against the current dma-mapping for-next tree?
Sure thing, will re-send tomorrow mo
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:01:10 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 09:56:09AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:38:19 +0200
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:23:13PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:52:16 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Just to add a highlevel comment here after I feel like I need a little
> more time to review the guts.
>
> I'm still pretty concerned about the extra list that needs to be
> consulted in is_swiotlb_buffer, but I can't really think of
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:47:44 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Any reason this can't just do a list_empty_careful on the list
> instead of adding yet another field that grows struct device?
On which list?
The dma_io_tlb_pools list only contains transient pools, but a device
may use bounce buffer
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:38:19 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:23:13PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > From: Petr Tesarik
> >
> > Add some kernel-doc comments and move the existing documentation of struct
> > io_tlb_slot to its correct location. The latter was forgotten
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:37:44 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > From: Petr Tesarik
> >
> > SWIOTLB implementation details should not be exposed to the rest of the
> > kernel. This will allow to make changes to the implementation wi
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:06:07 +0200
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Petr,
>
> On 13/7/23 17:23, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > From: Petr Tesarik
> >
> > SWIOTLB implementation details should not be exposed to the rest of the
> > kernel. This will allow to make changes to the implementation without
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:23:14 +0200
Petr Tesarik wrote:
> From: Petr Tesarik
>
> Carve out memory pool specific fields from struct io_tlb_mem. The original
> struct now contains shared data for the whole allocator, while the new
> struct io_tlb_pool contains data that is specific to one memory p
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 15:18:32 +
"Michael Kelley (LINUX)" wrote:
> From: Petr Tesařík Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 3:22 AM
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 10:29:00 +0100
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 02:22:50PM +
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 10:29:00 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 02:22:50PM +, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Sent: Thursday, July
> > 6, 2023 1:07 AM
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 03:50:55AM +, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
>
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:48:02 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:30:06PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > Xen is the only user of an "is SWIOTLB present" interface. IIUC Xen
> > needs bounce buffers for the PCI frontend driver, but if there is no
&
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 11:19:41 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Any comments? I'd really like to finish this off this merge window..
Let me second this request. My dynamic SWIOTLB patch series also has a
dependence on this.
Petr T
Oops, originally sent only to Robin. Restoring the recipient list here...
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:55:00 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 11:24 am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:54:23AM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * is_swiotlb_active() - ch
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:55:00 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 11:24 am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:54:23AM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * is_swiotlb_active() - check if the software IO TLB is initialized
> >> + * @dev: Device to check, or %
On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:10:26 +0200
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 06:04:05AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 08:18:39PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 03:42:51PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Sat, 20 May 2023 08:21:03 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:58:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:49:46PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > The alternative would be to finally merge swiotlb-xen into swiotlb, in
> > >
30 matches
Mail list logo
