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:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:18:14 -0700
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>, leedom@chelsio.com,
        herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Harsh@chelsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Fix scatterlist offset handling
Message-ID: <20171117091814.6673aecf@t450s.home>
In-Reply-To: <20171116210933.GA53016@otc-nc-03>
References: <644c3e01654f8bd48d669c36e424959d6ef0e27e.1506607370.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
        <1507035334.29211.105.camel@infradead.org>
        <db8c70d7-5978-20e8-d29a-91a4312f97dd@arm.com>
        <20171006144309.GA30803@8bytes.org>
        <20171106104709.06b38f7c@jacob-builder>
        <20171115155456.141a6dc8@jacob-builder>
        <20171116143244.2583d044@t450s.home>
        <20171116210933.GA53016@otc-nc-03>
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 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:09:33 -0800
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:54:56 -0800
> > Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Alex and all,
> > > 
> > > Just wondering if you could merge Robin's patch for the next rc. From
> > > all our testing, this seems to be a solid fix and should be included in
> > > the stable releases as well.  
> > 
> > Hi Jacob,
> > 
> > Sorry, this wasn't on my radar, I only scanned for patches back through
> > about when Joerg refreshed his next branch (others on the list speak up
> > if I didn't pickup your patches for the v4.15 merge window).
> > 
> > This patch makes sense to me and I'm glad you were able to work through
> > the anomaly Harsh saw in testing as an unrelated issue, but...
> > 
> > 
> > What do we do about this?  I certainly can't rip out large page support
> > and put a stable tag on the patch.  I'm not really spotting what's
> > wrong with large page support here, other than the comment about it
> > being a mess.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
> >   
> 
> Largepage seems to work and i don't think we need to rip it out. When
> Harsh tested it at one point we thought disabling super-page seemed to make
> the problem go away. Jacob tested and we still saw the need for Robin's patch.
> 
> Yes, the function looks humongous but i don't think we should wait for that 
> before this merge.

Ok.  Who wants to toss in review and testing sign-offs?  Clearly
there's been a lot more eyes and effort on this patch than reflected in
the original posting.  I'll add a stable cc.  Thanks,

Alex

From 1584294273113614288@xxx Fri Nov 17 06:39:17 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1579793157804914964
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread