Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] dma-direct: handle the memory encryption bit in
 common code
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix@mulix.org>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
References: <20180319103826.12853-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20180319103826.12853-13-hch@lst.de>
 <dd05dd14-9969-7985-826e-f440c3fc4c08@arm.com>
 <20180319152442.GA27915@lst.de>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
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
Precedence: bulk

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.