Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote on 11/07/2017 10:40:15 AM:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > To: Jonas Pfefferle1 <j...@zurich.ibm.com>, anatoly.bura...@intel.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Date: 11/07/2017 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] vfio: noiommu check error handling > > 07/11/2017 10:05, Jonas Pfefferle1: > > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote on 11/06/2017 09:25:15 PM: > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > To: Jonas Pfefferle <j...@zurich.ibm.com>, anatoly.bura...@intel.com > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Date: 11/06/2017 09:55 PM > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] vfio: noiommu check error handling > > > > > > 31/10/2017 16:59, Jonas Pfefferle: > > > > Check and report errors on open/read in noiommu check. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Pfefferle <j...@zurich.ibm.com> > > > > > > I cannot decide to apply this patch as it does not explain what > > > it is fixing, and as it is not reviewed. > > > > > > > This patch adds error handling and logging to the noiommu check. > > Also, on older kernels when the noiommu_enable file does not exist it > > assumes noiommu is not enabled instead of returning -1. > > Note that in rte_pci_get_iommu_class (drivers/bus/pci/linux/pci.c) > > is the only usage of the function and it assumes return == 1: > > noiommu is enabled any other return value noiommu disabled, i.e. > > my code change does not change the behavior of this function. > > We might want to check for errors in rte_pci_get_iommu_class > > as well since assuming it is not enabled when we cannot open > > and read it might lead to iova == VA being used even if noiommu is > > enabled. > > > > All this comes back to what I proposed before: instead of > > the noiommu and PPC64 check we should decide which iova mode > > to use depending on the iommu types available. > > The type should be already available at the point where we > > decide on the iova type. > > (iommu types supported is checked by vfio_get_container_fd) > > Is there something urgent for 17.11? > Or can it be refined in 18.02? Nothing urgent. We can refine this for 18.02. > > Anatoly, any thought? >
