Re: clearly mark DMA_OPS support as an architecture feature v2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: clearly mark DMA_OPS support as an architecture feature v2
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 09:27:44 +0200
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@xxxxxxxxx>, "Michael S . Tsirkin " <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20240828061104.1925127-1-hch@lst.de>
References: <20240828061104.1925127-1-hch@lst.de>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

I've pulled this into the dma-mapping for-next tree, although I'd
love to see one of the vdpa maintainers look over patch 1.  I'm
pretty sure it's correct, but a confirmation would be good.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: clearly mark DMA_OPS support as an architecture feature v2
  - From: Michael S. Tsirkin

References:
- clearly mark DMA_OPS support as an architecture feature v2
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: [PATCH 3/3] mm: Care about shadow stack guard gap when getting an unmapped area
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm: Introduce MAP_BELOW_HINT
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: clearly mark DMA ops as an architecture feature
Next by thread: Re: clearly mark DMA_OPS support as an architecture feature v2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Netdev] [Linux Wireless] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Linux for Hams] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux Admin] [Samba]