On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:43:43 +0100 Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Jacob, > > On 1/29/20 7:01 AM, Jacob Pan wrote: > > Memory type related guest PASID bind data can be grouped together > > for one simple check. > Those are flags related to memory type. right, will rephrase. > > Link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200109095123.17ed5e6b@jacob-builder/ > not sure the link is really helpful. > > will delete. the patch is very simple. > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > include/uapi/linux/iommu.h | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h > > index 4ad3496e5c43..fcafb6401430 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h > > @@ -284,7 +284,10 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd { > > __u32 pat; > > __u32 emt; > > }; > > - > > +#define IOMMU_SVA_VTD_GPASID_EMT_MASK > > (IOMMU_SVA_VTD_GPASID_CD | \ > > + IOMMU_SVA_VTD_GPASID_EMTE > > | \ > > + IOMMU_SVA_VTD_GPASID_PCD > > | \ > > + > > IOMMU_SVA_VTD_GPASID_PWT) > Why EMT rather than MT or MTS? > the spec says: > Those fields are treated as Reserved(0) for implementations not > supporting Memory Type (MTS=0 in Extended Capability Register). > MTS makes more sense, will change. It was from hygiene p.o.v. checking the flag to avoid touching these fields. Thanks, Jacob > > /** > > * struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data - Information about device and > > guest PASID binding > > * @version: Version of this data structure > > > > Thanks > > Eric > [Jacob Pan] _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
