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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191107205914.10611-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
 <1672a5861c82c2e3c0c54b5311fd413a8eee5e64.camel@infradead.org>
 <8D8B600C3EC1B64FAD4503F0B66C61F23BB95B@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <addba4e401c3bf23b86cf8dff97256282895e29f.camel@infradead.org>
 <8D8B600C3EC1B64FAD4503F0B66C61F23BBA24@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <CABeXuvoiX639HchLbgTHLiXPh=Yr2dJHUp2Yqc6pNJ3As1OJ8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABeXuvoiX639HchLbgTHLiXPh=Yr2dJHUp2Yqc6pNJ3As1OJ8A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:24:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CABeXuvqMpXbSNasET4-u16Hrj710fe-V706tsFZhOTJoir8Xjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-iommu: Turn off translations at shutdown
To:     "Zeng, Jason" <jason.zeng@intel.com>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Ron Minnich <rminnich@sandia.gov>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:48 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > For VMM live update case, we should be able to detect and bypass
> > > > the shutdown that Deepa introduced here, so keep IOMMU still operating?
> > >
> > > Is that a 'yes' to Deepa's "if someone wants to make it conditional, we
> > > can do that" ?
> >
> > Yes, I think so. Thanks!
>
> Are these changes already part of the kernel like avoiding shutdown of
> the passthrough devices? device_shutdown() doesn't seem to be doing
> anything selectively as of now.

I've posted the v2 without the conditional for now:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1151225/

As a side topic, I'm trying to support https://www.linuxboot.org/. I
have a couple of more such cleanups coming. The VMM live updates and
linuxboot seem to have contradicting requirements and they both use
kexec. So kexec_in_progress doesn't seem like a sufficient indicator
to distinguish between the two. Do you already have an idea on how to
distiguish between them? Does a separate sys_reboot() command
parameter sound ok? Or, we could use the flags in the sys_kexec_load()
depending on how the live update feature is implemented.

-Deepa