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;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:54:02 -0400
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ehci-pci breakage with dma-mapping changes in 5.4-rc2
Message-ID: <20191007235401.GA608824@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20191007022454.GA5270@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20191007073448.GA882@lst.de>
 <20191007175430.GA32537@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20191007175528.GA21857@lst.de>
 <20191007175630.GA28861@infradead.org>
 <20191007175856.GA42018@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20191007183206.GA13589@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <20191007184754.GB31345@lst.de>
 <20191007221054.GA409402@rani.riverdale.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191007221054.GA409402@rani.riverdale.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:47:54PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:32:07PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:32PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > > > > It doesn't boot with the patch. Won't it go
> > > > > > > 	dma_get_required_mask
> > > > > > > 	-> intel_get_required_mask
> > > > > > > 	-> iommu_need_mapping
> > > > > > > 	-> dma_get_required_mask
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Should the call to dma_get_required_mask in iommu_need_mapping be
> > > > > > > replaced with dma_direct_get_required_mask on top of your patch?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, sorry.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually my patch already calls dma_direct_get_required_mask.
> > > > > How did you get the loop?
> > > > 
> > > > The function iommu_need_mapping (not changed by your patch) calls
> > > > dma_get_required_mask internally, to check whether the device's dma_mask
> > > > is big enough or not. That's the call I was asking whether it needs to
> > > > be changed.
> > > 
> > > Yeah the attached patch seems to fix it.
> > 
> > That looks fine to me:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> Do you want me to resend the patch as its own mail, or do you just take
> it with a Tested-by: from me? If the former, I assume you're ok with me
> adding your Signed-off-by?
> 
> Thanks

A question on the original change though -- what happens if a single
device (or a single IOMMU domain really) does want >4G DMA address
space? Was that not previously allowed either?