On Wed Sep 25 19, Joerg Roedel wrote:
From: Joerg Roedel
The lock is not necessary because the device table does not
contain shared state that needs protection. Locking is only
needed on an individual entry basis, and that needs to
happen on the iommu_dev_data level.
Fixes: 92d420ec028d ("iomm
> On 25. Sep 2019, at 08:50, Sironi, Filippo wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 25. Sep 2019, at 06:22, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>> From: Joerg Roedel
>>
>> The lock is not necessary because the device table does not
>> contain shared state that needs protection. Locking is only
>> needed on an individual
> On 25. Sep 2019, at 06:22, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
> From: Joerg Roedel
>
> The lock is not necessary because the device table does not
> contain shared state that needs protection. Locking is only
> needed on an individual entry basis, and that needs to
> happen on the iommu_dev_data level.
From: Joerg Roedel
The lock is not necessary because the device table does not
contain shared state that needs protection. Locking is only
needed on an individual entry basis, and that needs to
happen on the iommu_dev_data level.
Fixes: 92d420ec028d ("iommu/amd: Relax locking in dma_ops path")
S