[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080525072011.GM7334@il.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:20:11 +0300
From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alexisb@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
avi@...ranet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -mm 0/2] x86: per-device dma_mapping_ops
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 04:13:02PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> OK; this sounds helpful. the hook can make a hypercall and confirm
> with the host kernel if the device in question is an assigned
> physical device. If yes, we replace the dma_ops. Though, the
> original intent of having stackable ops is that we might want to go
> through the swiotlb in the guest even for an assigned device if the
> guest dma addresses are not in the addressable range of the guest
> chipset.
>
> > created (it works with hot plugging). It enables IOMMUs to set up an
> > appropriate dma_mapping_ops per device.
>
> From what we've discussed so far, it looks like stackable dma ops will
> definitely be needed. Does this patchset provide something that stacking
> won't?
Yes---this patchset let's you have a per-device dma-ops, whereas with
stackable you only get global dma-ops. I think it's clear we need
both, and I think per-device dma-ops are the first thing that's
needed. Stacking can then be introduced on a per-device basis.
Cheers,
Muli
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists