On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:11:29 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:51:53PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > Thank you very much! I will have another look, but it seems to me, > > without further measures taken, this would break protected virtualization > > support on s390. The effect of the che for s390 is that > > force_dma_unencrypted() will always return false instead calling into > > the platform code like it did before the patch, right? > > > > Should I send a Fixes: e67a5ed1f86f "dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA > > under SME for certain DMA masks" (Tom Lendacky, 2019-07-10) patch that > > rectifies things for s390 or how do we want handle this? > > Yes, please do. I hadn't noticed the s390 support had landed in > mainline already. > Will do! I guess I should do the patch against the for-next branch of the dma-mapping tree. But that branch does not have the s390 support patches (yet?). To fix it I need both e67a5ed1f86f and 64e1f0c531d1 "s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization" (Halil Pasic, 2018-09-13). Or should I wait for e67a5ed1f86f landing in mainline? Regards, Halil
