Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:18:17 +0100 > Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Update the CFMW restrictions to also permit Back-Invalidate >> > flows by default, which is aligned with the no-restrictions >> > policy. >> > >> > While at it, document the 'restrictions=' option. >> >> I'd split the patch. Up to you. > Hi Markus, > > As you note below the interface hasn't been in any release anyway and > is part of the long backlog I'm carrying and slowly getting > upstream. Bringing this in from the start with that restrictions > control should be fine. > > However, backwards compatibility does need addressing > as this changes the default for things we do create today (with > no restrictions). > > In this particular case, I don't think we care because there are no > BI capable devices before this series - so there can't be anything > using this feature for the host memory range it describes. > > As such, the only result is the ACPI table says we have an extra > flag set which no one will care about. Will need to update > the ACPI table tests though. I'll check. > > Migration of CXL topologies is horribly broken currently anyway > so that's not a problem here. Given current usecases are strictly > software stack verification fixing that isn't a priority (yet).
Good to know. Work into commit message(s)?
