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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 CD72AC282CE for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6585520717 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6585520717 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF4B4A3B4; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zUjgiUvwvG8D; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50C84A51F; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0704A510 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zzbc6L6ddvD8 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60FDF4A50F for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:47:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jun 2019 08:47:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from jacob-builder.jf.intel.com (HELO jacob-builder) ([10.7.199.155]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2019 08:47:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:50:24 -0700 From: Jacob Pan To: Jean-Philippe Brucker Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/29] iommu: Add a timeout parameter for PRQ response Message-ID: <20190604085024.596696c3@jacob-builder> In-Reply-To: <13428eef-9b95-0f79-bebf-317a2205673a@arm.com> References: <20190526161004.25232-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20190526161004.25232-6-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20190603163214.483884a7@x1.home> <13428eef-9b95-0f79-bebf-317a2205673a@arm.com> Organization: OTC X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, "kevin.tian@intel.com" , "yi.l.liu@intel.com" , "ashok.raj@intel.com" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Zyngier , "joro@8bytes.org" , Will Deacon , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alex Williamson , Vincent Stehle , Robin Murphy , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "eric.auger.pro@gmail.com" X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:52:18 +0100 Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 03/06/2019 23:32, Alex Williamson wrote: > > It doesn't seem to make much sense to include this patch without > > also including "iommu: handle page response timeout". Was that one > > lost? Dropped? Lives elsewhere? > > The first 7 patches come from my sva/api branch, where I had forgotten > to add the "handle page response timeout" patch. I added it back, > probably after Eric sent this version. But I don't think the patch is > ready for upstream, as we still haven't decided how to proceed with > timeouts. Patches 6 and 7 are for debugging, I don't know if they > should go upstream. Yeah, we can wait until we all agree on timeouts. It was introduced for a basic safeguard against unresponsive guests. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm