Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] normalize IOMMU dma mode boot options

2019-04-08 Thread Leizhen (ThunderTown)



On 2019/4/8 14:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>>
>>> This will break systems using boot options as now, and I think
>>> this is unacceptable. If you want to do so, just introduce iommu.dma_mode
>>> on top of those iommu boot options with dma mode boot options unchanged,
>>> and iommu.dma_mode is for all archs but compatible with them.
>>
>> I just changed the boot options name, but keep the function no change. I 
>> added
>> all related maintainers/supporters in the "to=" list, maybe we can disuss 
>> this.
> 
> Changing the name _IS_ the problem. Think about unattended updates.
> 
>> Should I add some "obsoleted" warnings for old options and keep them for a 
>> while?
> 
> No, just keep the old options around for backwards compatibilty sake. We
> just do not add new arch specific options in the future. New options need
> to use the generic iommu.dma_mode name space.

OK, thanks for your advise.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   tglx
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Thanks!
BestRegards

___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu


Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] normalize IOMMU dma mode boot options

2019-04-08 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> > 
> > This will break systems using boot options as now, and I think
> > this is unacceptable. If you want to do so, just introduce iommu.dma_mode
> > on top of those iommu boot options with dma mode boot options unchanged,
> > and iommu.dma_mode is for all archs but compatible with them.
> 
> I just changed the boot options name, but keep the function no change. I added
> all related maintainers/supporters in the "to=" list, maybe we can disuss 
> this.

Changing the name _IS_ the problem. Think about unattended updates.

> Should I add some "obsoleted" warnings for old options and keep them for a 
> while?

No, just keep the old options around for backwards compatibilty sake. We
just do not add new arch specific options in the future. New options need
to use the generic iommu.dma_mode name space.

Thanks,

tglx
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu


Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] normalize IOMMU dma mode boot options

2019-04-07 Thread Leizhen (ThunderTown)



On 2019/4/8 9:14, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Zhen,
> 
> On 2019/4/7 20:41, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> As Robin Murphy's suggestion:
>> "It's also not necessarily obvious to the user how this interacts with
>> IOMMU_DEFAULT_PASSTHROUGH, so if we really do go down this route, maybe it
>> would be better to refactor the whole lot into a single selection of 
>> something
>> like IOMMU_DEFAULT_MODE anyway."
>>
>> In this version, I tried to normalize the IOMMU dma mode boot options for all
>> ARCHs. When IOMMU is enabled, there are 3 dma modes: paasthrough(bypass),
>> lazy(mapping but defer the IOTLB invalidation), strict. But currently each
>> ARCHs defined their private boot options, different with each other. For
>> example, to enable/disable "passthrough", ARM64 use iommu.passthrough=1/0,
>> X86 use iommu=pt/nopt, PPC/POWERNV use iommu=nobypass.
>>
>>
>> Zhen Lei (6):
>>   iommu: use iommu.dma_mode to replace iommu.passthrough and
>> iommu.strict
>>   iommu: keep dma mode build options consistent with cmdline options
>>   iommu: add iommu_default_dma_mode_get() helper
>>   s390/pci: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode
>>   powernv/iommu: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode
>>   x86/iommu: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode
> 
> This will break systems using boot options as now, and I think
> this is unacceptable. If you want to do so, just introduce iommu.dma_mode
> on top of those iommu boot options with dma mode boot options unchanged,
> and iommu.dma_mode is for all archs but compatible with them.

I just changed the boot options name, but keep the function no change. I added
all related maintainers/supporters in the "to=" list, maybe we can disuss this.
Should I add some "obsoleted" warnings for old options and keep them for a 
while?
But I think this kind of thing is best done in one go.

> 
> Thanks
> Hanjun
> 
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Thanks!
BestRegards

___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu


Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] normalize IOMMU dma mode boot options

2019-04-07 Thread Hanjun Guo
Hi Zhen,

On 2019/4/7 20:41, Zhen Lei wrote:
> As Robin Murphy's suggestion:
> "It's also not necessarily obvious to the user how this interacts with
> IOMMU_DEFAULT_PASSTHROUGH, so if we really do go down this route, maybe it
> would be better to refactor the whole lot into a single selection of something
> like IOMMU_DEFAULT_MODE anyway."
> 
> In this version, I tried to normalize the IOMMU dma mode boot options for all
> ARCHs. When IOMMU is enabled, there are 3 dma modes: paasthrough(bypass),
> lazy(mapping but defer the IOTLB invalidation), strict. But currently each
> ARCHs defined their private boot options, different with each other. For
> example, to enable/disable "passthrough", ARM64 use iommu.passthrough=1/0,
> X86 use iommu=pt/nopt, PPC/POWERNV use iommu=nobypass.
> 
> 
> Zhen Lei (6):
>   iommu: use iommu.dma_mode to replace iommu.passthrough and
> iommu.strict
>   iommu: keep dma mode build options consistent with cmdline options
>   iommu: add iommu_default_dma_mode_get() helper
>   s390/pci: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode
>   powernv/iommu: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode
>   x86/iommu: use common boot option iommu.dma_mode

This will break systems using boot options as now, and I think
this is unacceptable. If you want to do so, just introduce iommu.dma_mode
on top of those iommu boot options with dma mode boot options unchanged,
and iommu.dma_mode is for all archs but compatible with them.

Thanks
Hanjun

___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu