From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792473736; b=1UcGLFskRt4NOY/eAy7XohO5oZbM6XF1hEzP1DJL9oUH63thEoYzE2GhnbDurBAcNQcb 4HWSOiz9DkIXv30PzKZjtSbN+l0ovJtIxHHZmTKzb6vgVy6Nc18X7qWLPEgnqx0+jzoCP YLnGuj7oFKq1ryWbewnuhAZ00ruXepcn7gAG/hBiQ/JUa2jKeIkvjmCan/o+UFm2bc8k2 uqQYWA2lVuECF07I9aN2kWD53QDOH1sZwXw3MIkmwW9rS1NFeFJ6UYn4q0u11P68tmnEl OnwIZ08eLgkVsR9Pc9mRU5mGunqzHcxQPU3mkixboMivnvUqBoDWROQmNIzcwuHwekA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792473736; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=XqdedUL9j1kYoCsVgoGHr/AMA1g1btCDEN8xHec8Krs=; b=ebVJGHea443rBHjrm8ymZkvxYUkWK7J4OqIR7fNeuEYWG0Z3beBTFVAZy9d75/OAd7jg zgy3HPW0oZaXNDxIVt7pmgxmlkIxnFFoU2HW42CxzH0gaqXxr4FrMMwsT/T6oBHIFw1cz Wh7QkEUJwVdFeTXMH+DIg08ZYJTyzUFwBJSaUDlgV+uuc7Cv5uLsHE+Xd5KfmSilqwh98 y9Nb+0mmmeaqq/pRm6wjR9gPqK4e9shC6vDc+olP9tSWb4E+6f31JhnedQWD6pW5t8tJs CncegyMPIefm/xyX5ByK6v7UUGR0vVco0SHp05sTHqCaNxjii2r2rFrsIvf/KFIT6hQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=atnR+WAo; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 749A8606A319; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 05:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=atnR+WAo Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 797861F000C4; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 05:22:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792473736; bh=XqdedUL9j1kYoCsVgoGHr/AMA1g1btCDEN8xHec8Krs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=atnR+WAoKxIzMdNNh8969UQH9W/45n1AXtUjCFyka03176J4zi9OzLj5bFc+1AsU2 sEfS3EwqWvPNIM7zjbYiM9LsvIITj2a6aGz30Fef1JTUMraetGY9xG/9DhK+P1JgGa H9HoBTWHssuBVriaJ6gmk5pLX/Q0XpV8cSocP2Fss5pDXlenGqKMPtcH1H0xFkN0gx xS5YGBKzZQXkwLct+MlHqJDBh5o2AxGmHv0w8zwj07gKYQ/gGeWKeDr3LFP8egDwWP EKIwYFsLpQ5GGPb69D/mvRXDuh9gGtR9IXRJ/njbVUbe2vIcVxwvVQhFuhm82GLwV8 9uIjCDXsf0CRw== Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 08:22:11 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Logan Gunthorpe Cc: "Popov, Pavel E" , Bjorn Helgaas , Jim Chow , Radu Rugina , Alexey Makhalov , Wei Liu , Michael Kelley , Lukas Wunner , Nathan Ciobanu , "bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com" , "virtualization@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI/P2PDMA: Allow P2PDMA in VMware guests on Intel hosts Message-ID: <20261020052211.GJ64621@unreal> References: <20261016223402.19991-1-pavel.e.popov@intel.com> <20261016223402.19991-2-pavel.e.popov@intel.com> <8b01d643-f62d-4118-a700-8874341d953b@deltatee.com> <20261017074820.GD219304@unreal> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 03:14:38PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 2026-10-19 13:48, Popov, Pavel E wrote: > > Logan, Leon, > > > > I kept the hypervisor check to avoid changing what the host bridge > > whitelist refuses on bare metal. Looking at those cases again, on the > > listed Xeon CPUs this is a limitation of the whitelist itself, not a > > known hardware limit, and it is why Intel QAT/DSA/IAA had to be added > > by ID. So I'd drop the hypervisor check. > > > > Would a v3 that moves the Xeon list into cpu_supports_p2pdma(), the > > same way as the AMD check, be acceptable to you both? > > Yes, that's essentially what I was suggesting before. That would be > acceptable to me. Right, I also wrote the same thing in my summary "We agreed ...". Thanks > > Thanks, > > Logan >