From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49057C432BE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A88A60EB6 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234539AbhGWIGz (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:06:55 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43082 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234311AbhGWIGy (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:06:54 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16N8Xf5n078056; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:47:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=zBjhx0J/gTbLIX8o/G22Lyc4piL3CKnQLcUrRMOIbSw=; b=MerVx9hmWCH0UlossvG4YR4Yxg1XtuUkMRPphHqN4yCPj9M1i087UF4Bf9nCOB22mOHK cPmYY+35gZNdbxKu8AdG3fEYoAZdYhlD5qPiPAfhkg9HF3ZYti9BtkgSyIudhw47xG6g AhovUYFP7134qkVUJNMbUGm22IYHDbJK00Dq7MEMm7fuitrvKbqVNZBEYO/P9nENogZw UO0AludyiYV9qaMQq8OZKhnrCFQyDHHkCfkEucKOf1/srRIRBRA8sXd7G1Xl3gfa1mqD +UKSXZRMR7zOlBp2zjEqr+O6/2XOu7K0m1ffRjG1BjPfXT87se7r2llYkHzpekbyN4CM PQ== Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 39ytc78bty-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:47:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16N8Y1s7007131; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:07 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 39upfh9swt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:07 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 16N8iaSg23658884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:44:36 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487E94204F; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F75742041; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e979b1cc-23ba-11b2-a85c-dfd230f6cf82 (unknown [9.171.6.217]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:47:01 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Will Deacon , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , Claire Chang , Christoph Hellwig , Robin Murphy , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Nathan Chancellor , linux-s390 , Vasily Gorbik , Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix restricted DMA vs swiotlb_exit() Message-ID: <20210723104701.3f8ac227.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210720133826.9075-1-will@kernel.org> <57e37ef9-c055-d6a6-2244-2c7dd243b5c1@de.ibm.com> <20210723031252.655d6a83.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: sUv-Q8d94Qfk_kxPtGywvzAB6JS8DuBE X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: sUv-Q8d94Qfk_kxPtGywvzAB6JS8DuBE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-23_04:2021-07-23,2021-07-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2107230049 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Resending with the correct email of Heiko.... > > On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > >> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> Hi again, folks, > >>> > >>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@kernel.org > >>> > >>> The only changes since v1 are: > >>> > >>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly > >>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) > >>> > >>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes > >>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >> > >> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode > >> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 > >> > >> to > >> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc > >> Author: Claire Chang > >> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 > >> > >> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing > >> > >> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more > >> things are broken. > >> > >> Any idea what else might be broken? > > > > I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since > > that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is > > initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. > > > > --------------------8<------------------------------------- > > > > From: Halil Pasic > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb > > > > Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for > > swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so > > before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise > > io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices > > that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force > > having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. > > > > Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new > > requirement. > > > I would add: > Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") > as this patch breaks things > and > Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization") > > to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things. I agree. Do we want this backported to the stable releases that have 64e1f0c531d1 (i.e. do we need a cc stable) or should the fixes tag just serve as metadata? My guess is, it's the former. In that sense should I add the tags along with an explanation for the second fixes respin with cc stable? (BTW I don't think this formally qualifies for the stable backports, but I hope we can make an exception...) > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic > > I can confirm that this fixes the problem. This also makes sense codewise. > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger > Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger Thanks! Regards, Halil > > Konrad, Heiko, Vasily, any preference which tree this goes? I think s390 > would be easiest, but that requires that the patches in the swiotlb tree have > fixed commit IDs. > > > --- > > arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > index 8ac710de1ab1..07bbee9b7320 100644 > > --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > @@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ static void pv_init(void) > > return; > > > > /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > swiotlb_init(1); > > swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > > - swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > } > > > > void __init mem_init(void) > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C26C4338F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CD6760E0C for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 9CD6760E0C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5135D405E9; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0NgsFAuPncng; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FD0405D4; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D50C001A; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE43C000E for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5FB6066F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHwzOFFEphdM for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BBB6058A for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16N8Xf5n078056; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:47:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=zBjhx0J/gTbLIX8o/G22Lyc4piL3CKnQLcUrRMOIbSw=; b=MerVx9hmWCH0UlossvG4YR4Yxg1XtuUkMRPphHqN4yCPj9M1i087UF4Bf9nCOB22mOHK cPmYY+35gZNdbxKu8AdG3fEYoAZdYhlD5qPiPAfhkg9HF3ZYti9BtkgSyIudhw47xG6g AhovUYFP7134qkVUJNMbUGm22IYHDbJK00Dq7MEMm7fuitrvKbqVNZBEYO/P9nENogZw UO0AludyiYV9qaMQq8OZKhnrCFQyDHHkCfkEucKOf1/srRIRBRA8sXd7G1Xl3gfa1mqD +UKSXZRMR7zOlBp2zjEqr+O6/2XOu7K0m1ffRjG1BjPfXT87se7r2llYkHzpekbyN4CM PQ== Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 39ytc78bty-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:47:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16N8Y1s7007131; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:07 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 39upfh9swt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:07 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 16N8iaSg23658884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:44:36 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487E94204F; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F75742041; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e979b1cc-23ba-11b2-a85c-dfd230f6cf82 (unknown [9.171.6.217]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:47:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:47:01 +0200 From: Halil Pasic To: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix restricted DMA vs swiotlb_exit() Message-ID: <20210723104701.3f8ac227.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210720133826.9075-1-will@kernel.org> <57e37ef9-c055-d6a6-2244-2c7dd243b5c1@de.ibm.com> <20210723031252.655d6a83.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: sUv-Q8d94Qfk_kxPtGywvzAB6JS8DuBE X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: sUv-Q8d94Qfk_kxPtGywvzAB6JS8DuBE X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-23_04:2021-07-23, 2021-07-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2107230049 Cc: linux-s390 , Vasily Gorbik , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Robin Murphy , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Claire Chang , Will Deacon , Christoph Hellwig , Guenter Roeck X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "iommu" On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Resending with the correct email of Heiko.... > > On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > >> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> Hi again, folks, > >>> > >>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@kernel.org > >>> > >>> The only changes since v1 are: > >>> > >>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly > >>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) > >>> > >>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes > >>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >> > >> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode > >> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 > >> > >> to > >> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc > >> Author: Claire Chang > >> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 > >> > >> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing > >> > >> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more > >> things are broken. > >> > >> Any idea what else might be broken? > > > > I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since > > that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is > > initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. > > > > --------------------8<------------------------------------- > > > > From: Halil Pasic > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb > > > > Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for > > swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so > > before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise > > io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices > > that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force > > having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. > > > > Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new > > requirement. > > > I would add: > Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") > as this patch breaks things > and > Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization") > > to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things. I agree. Do we want this backported to the stable releases that have 64e1f0c531d1 (i.e. do we need a cc stable) or should the fixes tag just serve as metadata? My guess is, it's the former. In that sense should I add the tags along with an explanation for the second fixes respin with cc stable? (BTW I don't think this formally qualifies for the stable backports, but I hope we can make an exception...) > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic > > I can confirm that this fixes the problem. This also makes sense codewise. > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger > Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger Thanks! Regards, Halil > > Konrad, Heiko, Vasily, any preference which tree this goes? I think s390 > would be easiest, but that requires that the patches in the swiotlb tree have > fixed commit IDs. > > > --- > > arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > index 8ac710de1ab1..07bbee9b7320 100644 > > --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > @@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ static void pv_init(void) > > return; > > > > /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > swiotlb_init(1); > > swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > > - swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > } > > > > void __init mem_init(void) > > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu