Re: [PATCH] remove fullflush and nofullflush in IOMMU genericoption

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:09:46 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:56:21AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > 
> > Because you did things int the wrong way, I said again and again.
> > 
> > I can't see why you refuse to do the things in the proper way.
> > 
> > 
> > > objections agains the generic iommu=fullflush come up. The patch does
> > > not break anything and just moves the iommu=flush parameter (which is
> > > already available) to pci-dma.c to make it useable by AMD IOMMU too.
> > 
> > Breaking anything does mean that it's fine. My patch doesn't break
> > anything too.
> > 
> > I'm not against fullflush (as I said again and again). I guess that
> > it's the right move though it might be not so useful if VT-d doesn't
> > support it.
> > 
> > I'm against totally pointless nofullflush and the way you changed the
> > generic IOMMU code.
> 
> Then submit a patch that changes it to the version you prefer. I already
> said that I am fine with the removal of nofullflush. But completly

I don't know it's acceptable if removing the exported interface even
if the maintainer of it wants to remove it and it's totally
meaningless.


> reverting is the wrong way. For AMD IOMMU I want to use the
> iommu=fullflush way because I want to reuse a parameter thats already
> there. Thats why I am against your reverting patch.
> So now I stop repeating my points again and again. EOD.

I understood you want to use iommu=fullflush but you can't touch the
generic code without any discussion.

And even if everyone is happy about the change, it's much better to
start from scratch rather than try to fix the things done in the wrong
way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/