Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:02:13 +0200
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc:     Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com,
        jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without
 IOMMU feature
Message-ID: <20200619140213.69f4992d.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com>
References: <1592390637-17441-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
        <1592390637-17441-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
        <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
        <20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:20:51 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > +	if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> > > +		!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> > > +		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > > +			 "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");    
> > 
> > I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a
> > good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that  
> 
> Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in
> headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define
> and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn.
> 
> > much. An alternative would be:
> > "virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory,
> > aborting the device"  
> 
> "virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ?
> 
> But no issue with keeping the current message.

I think I prefer Conny's version, but no strong feelings here.

Halil