Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 05:17:15PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >Hi Jason, > >On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 at 19:27, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 12:51:49PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: >> >> > Given that Christoph's objection is not really about the modules part, >> > but that the set_memory_{encrypted,decrypted} should not be used here, >> > one option is to revert 78b30c50a7ac until that issue is sorted out? >> >> Please no, we have stuff already using this so it would be a >> functional regression. Revert making heaps into a module since that >> doesn't have a functional regression. > >Thanks for your comments. > >To me, it looks like while system and system_cc_shared heaps share a >lot of code, their user bases have different needs. It's apparent that >system_cc_heap users don't care about it being a module while system >heap users would very much like so. > >I also discussed this with Arnd, and he suggested we could rearrange >the code so that system_heap_cc_shared_priv depends on a new Kconfig >symbol like > >config DMABUF_HEAPS_CC_SYSTEM > bool "DMA-BUF System Heap for memory encryption" > depends on ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT && DMABUF_HEAPS_SYSTEM=y > >This allows building both into the kernel or leave encryption choice >up to the consumers of the system heap. > >If this is agreeable to everyone, I can post Arnd's patch.
Sounds good to me. Thanks!
