On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:43:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
> isn't a PCI specific concept, and we should not have code poking into
> pci_dev all over the iommu code.
I suppose that could go in a separate series once
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 04:47:17PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 10:19 -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > Hi Christoph
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:43:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
> > >
On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 10:19 -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Hi Christoph
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:43:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
> > isn't a PCI specific concept, and we should not have code poking into
> >
Hi,
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:19:49AM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:43:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
> > isn't a PCI specific concept, and we should not have code poking into
> > pci_dev all
Hi Christoph
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:43:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
> isn't a PCI specific concept, and we should not have code poking into
> pci_dev all over the iommu code.
Just for clarification: All IOMMU's
Can you please lift the untrusted flag into struct device? It really
isn't a PCI specific concept, and we should not have code poking into
pci_dev all over the iommu code.
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
I sent these in March as part of ATS enablement for device-tree [1], but
haven't found the time to address the largest comment on that series
about consolidating the root bridge ATS support between the different
ACPI tables.
I'm resending only the bits that consolidate the 'untrusted' check for
