Hi Thomas/Jason,

On 9/30/2020 8:20 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

On Wed, Sep 30 2020 at 08:43, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:41:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 29 2020 at 16:03, Megha Dey wrote:

quoted

On 8/26/2020 4:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

#9	is obviously just for the folks interested in IMS

I see that the tip tree (as of 9/29) has most of these patches but
notice that the DEV_MSI related patches

haven't made it. I have tested the tip tree(x86/irq branch) with your
DEV_MSI infra patches and our IMS patches with the IDXD driver and was

Your IMS patches? Why do you need something special again?

By IMS patches, I meant your IMS driver patch that was updated (as it 
was untested, it had some compile

errors and we removed the IMS_QUEUE parts) :

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/160021246221.67751.16280230469654363209.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com/ (local)

and some iommu related changes required by IMS.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/160021246905.67751.1674517279122764758.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com/ (local)

The whole patchset can be found here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f4a085f1-f6de-2539-12fe-c7308d243a4a@intel.com/ (local)

It would be great if you could review the IMS patches :)

quoted

quoted

quoted

wondering if we should push out those patches as part of our patchset?

As I don't have any hardware to test that, I was waiting for you and
Jason to confirm that this actually works for the two different IMS
implementations.

How urgently do you need this? The code looked good from what I
understood. It will be a while before we have all the parts to send an
actual patch though.

I personally do not need it at all :) Megha might have different
thoughts...

I have tested these patches and it works fine (I had to add a couple of 
EXPORT_SYMBOLS).

We were hoping to get IMS in the 5.10 merge window :)

quoted

We might be able to put together a mockup just to prove it

If that makes Megha's stuff going that would of course be appreciated,
but we can defer the IMS_QUEUE part for later. It's orthogonal to the
IMS_ARRAY stuff.

In our patch series, we have removed the IMS_QUEUE stuff and retained 
only the IMS_ARRAY parts

as that was sufficient for us.

Thanks,

         tglx