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:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:10:51 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org,
        rientjes@google.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] dma-pool: allow user to disable atomic pool
Message-ID: <YNR2S02hWS2hwNiz@infradead.org>
References: <20210624052010.5676-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <YNQ258KHlzlajqo/@infradead.org>
 <20210624092930.GA802261@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <8b3d4e02-6e94-ad59-a480-fed8e55c009a@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8b3d4e02-6e94-ad59-a480-fed8e55c009a@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:47:31AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hmm, I think the Kconfig reshuffle has actually left a slight wrinkle here.
> For DMA_DIRECT_REMAP=y we can assume an atomic pool is always needed, since
> that was the original behaviour anyway. However the implications of
> AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=y are different - even if support is enabled, it still
> should only be relevant if mem_encrypt_active(), so it probably does make
> sense to have an additional runtime gate on that.

Yeah, a check for that would probably be useful.