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_PASS 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 8EC47C10F14 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624BC20645 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727176AbfDWHmG (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:06 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:23988 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726809AbfDWHmD (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:42:03 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Apr 2019 00:42:03 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,385,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="339939624" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.136]) ([10.239.159.136]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2019 00:42:00 -0700 Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, David Woodhouse , Joerg Roedel , ashok.raj@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, alan.cox@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, pengfei.xu@intel.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jacob Pan Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] iommu/vt-d: Check whether device requires bounce buffer To: Christoph Hellwig References: <20190421011719.14909-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20190421011719.14909-9-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20190422164755.GC31181@lst.de> <76e35340-32c3-ee0d-5232-bd8800248402@linux.intel.com> <20190423060858.GA12762@lst.de> From: Lu Baolu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:35:51 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190423060858.GA12762@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 4/23/19 2:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Again, this and the option should not be in a specific iommu driver. >>> >> >> The option of whether bounce is ignored should be in the specific iommu >> driver. > > Why? As a user I could not care less which IOMMU driver my particular > system uses. > Looks reasonable to me. Let's listen to more opinions. Best regards, Lu Baolu