From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755903AbeCSPh2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:28 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:53978 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755845AbeCSPhX (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:37:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] dma-direct: handle the memory encryption bit in common code To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: x86@kernel.org, Tom Lendacky , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Muli Ben-Yehuda , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, David Woodhouse , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas References: <20180319103826.12853-1-hch@lst.de> <20180319103826.12853-13-hch@lst.de> <20180319152442.GA27915@lst.de> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <5316b479-7e75-d62f-6b17-b6bece55187c@arm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:37:20 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180319152442.GA27915@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19/03/18 15:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:19:04PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >> As a heads-up, I've just realised there's now a silent (but build-breaking) >> conflict with the current arm64 queue brewing here, as we've unfortunately >> had to reintroduce ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA as a means of being safe against an >> ugly architectural corner case - currently commit 1f85b42a691c ("arm64: >> Revert L1_CACHE_SHIFT back to 6 (64-byte cache line size)") in -next. > > Please revert that arm64 commit. This condition should be handled > in common code as it is not arm specific. And next time please CC > the iommu list and dma-mapping maintainers before doing such a change. There didn't seem enough justification to clutter up core SWIOTLB code with the ability to force bouncing on a per-device basis, but if you think there are real potential users out there then fair enough. For arm64, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever build a sufficiently wacky system to actually hit this code path; we really only implemented it for peace of mind per the letter of the architecture. Robin.