linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1984 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in:

  drivers/iommu/Kconfig
  drivers/iommu/Makefile

between commit:

  004240dcc222 ("iommu/hyper-v: Add Hyper-V stub IOMMU driver")

from the iommu tree and commit:

  d906f4225497 ("iommu: Add virtio-iommu driver")

from the vhost tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/iommu/Kconfig
index 6f07f3b21816,d507fd754214..000000000000
--- a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
@@@ -437,13 -435,15 +437,24 @@@ config QCOM_IOMM
  	help
  	  Support for IOMMU on certain Qualcomm SoCs.
  
 +config HYPERV_IOMMU
 +	bool "Hyper-V x2APIC IRQ Handling"
 +	depends on HYPERV
 +	select IOMMU_API
 +	default HYPERV
 +	help
 +	  Stub IOMMU driver to handle IRQs as to allow Hyper-V Linux
 +	  guests to run with x2APIC mode enabled.
 +
+ config VIRTIO_IOMMU
+ 	bool "Virtio IOMMU driver"
+ 	depends on VIRTIO=y
+ 	depends on ARM64
+ 	select IOMMU_API
+ 	select INTERVAL_TREE
+ 	help
+ 	  Para-virtualised IOMMU driver with virtio.
+ 
+ 	  Say Y here if you intend to run this kernel as a guest.
+ 
  endif # IOMMU_SUPPORT
diff --cc drivers/iommu/Makefile
index 8c71a15e986b,48d831a39281..000000000000
--- a/drivers/iommu/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/iommu/Makefile
@@@ -32,4 -32,4 +32,5 @@@ obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_IOMMU) += exynos-io
  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_PAMU) += fsl_pamu.o fsl_pamu_domain.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_S390_IOMMU) += s390-iommu.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IOMMU) += qcom_iommu.o
 +obj-$(CONFIG_HYPERV_IOMMU) += hyperv-iommu.o
+ obj-$(CONFIG_VIRTIO_IOMMU) += virtio-iommu.o

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Jean-Philippe Brucker]

On 27/02/2019 04:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   drivers/iommu/Kconfig
>   drivers/iommu/Makefile
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   004240dcc222 ("iommu/hyper-v: Add Hyper-V stub IOMMU driver")
> 
> from the iommu tree and commit:
> 
>   d906f4225497 ("iommu: Add virtio-iommu driver")
> 
> from the vhost tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
Thanks Stephen, sorry about the extra work. The virtio-iommu driver was
helpfully added to the vhost tree to ensure it doesn't break anything,
but since Joerg has some reservations, only the hyper-v change will be
merged in v5.1. I'd welcome a change of heart however, in which case the
driver should probably go via the iommu tree to avoid conflicts.

Thanks,
Jean

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:30:27AM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 27/02/2019 04:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in:
> > 
> >   drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> >   drivers/iommu/Makefile
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   004240dcc222 ("iommu/hyper-v: Add Hyper-V stub IOMMU driver")
> > 
> > from the iommu tree and commit:
> > 
> >   d906f4225497 ("iommu: Add virtio-iommu driver")
> > 
> > from the vhost tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> Thanks Stephen, sorry about the extra work. The virtio-iommu driver was
> helpfully added to the vhost tree to ensure it doesn't break anything,
> but since Joerg has some reservations, only the hyper-v change will be
> merged in v5.1. I'd welcome a change of heart however, in which case the
> driver should probably go via the iommu tree to avoid conflicts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jean

Even though it's not going into 5.1 I feel it's helpful to keep it in
the vhost tree until the next cycle, it helps make sure unrelated
changes don't break it.

-- 
MST

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Joerg Roedel]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:58:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Even though it's not going into 5.1 I feel it's helpful to keep it in
> the vhost tree until the next cycle, it helps make sure unrelated
> changes don't break it.

It is not going to 5.1, so it shouldn't be in linux-next, no? And when
it is going upstream, it should do so through the iommu tree. If you
keep it separatly in the vhost tree for testing purposes, please make
sure it is not included into your linux-next branch.

Regards,

	Joerg

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:04:42AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:58:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Even though it's not going into 5.1 I feel it's helpful to keep it in
> > the vhost tree until the next cycle, it helps make sure unrelated
> > changes don't break it.
> 
> It is not going to 5.1, so it shouldn't be in linux-next, no? And when
> it is going upstream, it should do so through the iommu tree. If you
> keep it separatly in the vhost tree for testing purposes, please make
> sure it is not included into your linux-next branch.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Joerg

Joerg, what are we doing with these patches?
It was tested in next with no bad effects.
I sent an ack - do you want to pick it up?
Or have me include it in my pull?

Thanks!


-- 
MST

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Jean-Philippe Brucker]

On 12/05/2019 18:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:04:42AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:58:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Even though it's not going into 5.1 I feel it's helpful to keep it in
>>> the vhost tree until the next cycle, it helps make sure unrelated
>>> changes don't break it.
>>
>> It is not going to 5.1, so it shouldn't be in linux-next, no? And when
>> it is going upstream, it should do so through the iommu tree. If you
>> keep it separatly in the vhost tree for testing purposes, please make
>> sure it is not included into your linux-next branch.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 	Joerg
> 
> Joerg, what are we doing with these patches?
> It was tested in next with no bad effects.
> I sent an ack - do you want to pick it up?
> Or have me include it in my pull?

I'll resend the driver for v5.3 with some changes. They should be minor
but one of the changes (domain bits -> domain range) touches UAPI and
isn't backward compatible, so it would be better not to merge it this
time around.

Thanks,
Jean

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Joerg Roedel]

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:16:26PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Joerg, what are we doing with these patches?
> It was tested in next with no bad effects.
> I sent an ack - do you want to pick it up?
> Or have me include it in my pull?

I'd prefer it in my tree, if you are fine with the spec.

Regards,

	Joerg

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the iommu tree

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:27:18AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:16:26PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Joerg, what are we doing with these patches?
> > It was tested in next with no bad effects.
> > I sent an ack - do you want to pick it up?
> > Or have me include it in my pull?
> 
> I'd prefer it in my tree, if you are fine with the spec.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Joerg

OK let me just check spec status.

-- 
MST