Re: [PATCH 00/23] iommu: Refactor DMA domain strictness

[John Garry]

On 21/07/2021 19:20, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First off, yes, this conflicts with just about everything else
> currently in-flight. Sorry about that. If it stands up to initial review
> then I'll start giving some thought to how to fit everything together
> (particularly John's cleanup of strictness defaults, which I'd be
> inclined to fold into a v2 of this series).

It seems to me that patch #20 is the only real conflict, and that is 
just a different form of mine in that passthrough, strict, and lazy are 
under a single choice, as opposed to passthrough being a separate config 
(for mine). And on that point, I did assume that we would have a 
different sysfs file for strict vs lazy in this series, and not a new 
domain type. But I assume that there is a good reason for that.

Anyway, I'd really like to see my series just merged now.

Thanks,
John


> Anyway, this is my take on promoting the strict vs. non-strict DMA
> domain choice to distinct domain types, so that it can fit logically
> into the existing sysfs and Kconfig controls. The first 13 patches are
> effectively preparatory cleanup to reduce churn in the later changes,
> but could be merged in their own right even if the rest is too
> contentious. I ended up splitting patches #2-#11 by driver for ease of
> review, since some of them are more than just trivial deletions, but
> they could readily be squashed (even as far as with #1 and #12 too).
>
> I'm slightly surprised at how straightforward it's turned out, but it
> has survived some very basic smoke testing for arm-smmu using dmatest
> on my Arm Juno board. Branch here for convenience: