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;
Reply-To: sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Enable PRI only if the device enables
 PASID.
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc:     joro@8bytes.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
References: <142748f6a00153f9926fe2a9dc30cf3cd89164cd.1549408090.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <0faf4f6a5bbd8cbee84aa78c40ab15216c2b8f0e.camel@infradead.org>
 <20190207210936.GH103220@otc-nc-03>
 <9393b9b2c15564ee84b627a73fb34bd17ebe4a7f.camel@infradead.org>
From:   sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel
Message-ID: <cdb6fb16-157e-059e-44ee-515fb4aca9af@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Feb 2019 13:30:24 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9393b9b2c15564ee84b627a73fb34bd17ebe4a7f.camel@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2/7/19 1:15 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 13:09 -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
>> You are right.. they are completely orthogonal. We just don't have
>> a way to handle the page-requests for request without PASID's.
>>
>> There are some of the vIOMMU work to pass the PRI to who owns
>> the device, and we can certainly relax it then. This is just to reflect
>> what support exists today. FWIW, even the native driver maybe be able
>> to resolve this if supported.
> As things stand, if a device makes a PRI request without a PASID, it'll
> get told that we didn't manage to bring the page in for it. Which is
> true.
>
> What's the actual problem being fixed by this patch?
Since the request is going to fail any way why go through the process of 
enabling it ? Once the functionality (PRI without PASID) is supported, 
then they can revert this patch. Just we are trying to expose whats 
currently supported clearly.
> Yes, we're going
> to want to hook up a way to pass the PRI to the right place... but why
> add *another* thing that's just going to have to be fixed, by reverting
> this patch?
>
-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer