On 27/09/17 13:27, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi Will, Robin, > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:43:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> Joerg, do you reckon it's worth merging this as-is, or should we also >> hook up add_flush before implementing this? > > The patches implement .iotlb_sync() so that it is okay to not have a > .iotlb_range_add() call-back for now. But the patches lack a > .flush_iotlb_range() call-back, which is strictly necessary for > correctness because it is defined to be synchronous and doesn't require > a sync-call afterwards.
Good point - even with the flush still implicit in the unmap, an iommu_unmap_fast()/iommu_flush_iotlb_all() sequence would indeed be missing a sync at the end. I'll fix that up and post a new version shortly. Thanks, Robin. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
