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;
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:50:24 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger.pro@gmail.com" <eric.auger.pro@gmail.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "yi.l.liu@intel.com" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@arm.com>,
        "kevin.tian@intel.com" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "ashok.raj@intel.com" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
        "peter.maydell@linaro.org" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Stehle <Vincent.Stehle@arm.com>,
        jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/29] iommu: Add a timeout parameter for PRQ
 response
Message-ID: <20190604085024.596696c3@jacob-builder>
In-Reply-To: <13428eef-9b95-0f79-bebf-317a2205673a@arm.com>
References: <20190526161004.25232-1-eric.auger@redhat.com>
        <20190526161004.25232-6-eric.auger@redhat.com>
        <20190603163214.483884a7@x1.home>
        <13428eef-9b95-0f79-bebf-317a2205673a@arm.com>
Organization: OTC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:52:18 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> wrote:

> On 03/06/2019 23:32, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to make much sense to include this patch without
> > also including "iommu: handle page response timeout".  Was that one
> > lost? Dropped?  Lives elsewhere?  
> 
> The first 7 patches come from my sva/api branch, where I had forgotten
> to add the "handle page response timeout" patch. I added it back,
> probably after Eric sent this version. But I don't think the patch is
> ready for upstream, as we still haven't decided how to proceed with
> timeouts. Patches 6 and 7 are for debugging, I don't know if they
> should go upstream.
Yeah, we can wait until we all agree on timeouts. It was introduced for
a basic safeguard against unresponsive guests.