On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2021-07-06 15:05, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 03:01:04PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > FWIW I was pondering the question of whether to do something along those > > > lines or just scrap the default assignment entirely, so since I hadn't got > > > round to saying that I've gone ahead and hacked up the alternative > > > (similarly untested) for comparison :) > > > > > > TBH I'm still not sure which one I prefer... > > > > Claire did implement something like your suggestion originally, but > > I don't really like it as it doesn't scale for adding multiple global > > pools, e.g. for the 64-bit addressable one for the various encrypted > > secure guest schemes. > > Ah yes, that had slipped my mind, and it's a fair point indeed. Since we're > not concerned with a minimal fix for backports anyway I'm more than happy to > focus on Will's approach. Another thing is that that looks to take us a > quiet step closer to the possibility of dynamically resizing a SWIOTLB pool, > which is something that some of the hypervisor protection schemes looking to > build on top of this series may want to explore at some point. Ok, I'll split that nasty diff I posted up into a reviewable series and we can take it from there. Will
