Re: [PATCH v2 02/19] iommu: introduce device fault data

[Jean-Philippe Brucker]

On 25/04/2019 14:21, Auger Eric wrote:
  We could add a
>> IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PERM_VALID bit instead, but I still find it
>> weird to denote the validity of a bitfield using a separate bit.
>>
>> Given that three different series now rely on this, how about we send
>> the fault patches separately for v5.2?

Sorry I meant v5.3 - after the merge window

>> I pushed the recoverable fault
>> support applied on top of this, with the PERM_READ bit and cleaned up
>> kernel doc, to git://linux-arm.org/linux-jpb.git sva/api
> 
> my only concern is is it likely to be upstreamed without any actual
> user? In the positive, of course, I don't have any objection.

Possibly, I don't think my I/O page fault stuff for SVA is likely to get
in v5.3, it depends on one or two more patch sets. But your nested work
and Jacob's one may be in good shape for next version? I find it
difficult to keep track of the same patches in three different series.

Thanks,
Jean