linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: replace BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY with BIOVEC_PHYS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20081027183604V.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:36:13 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	jeremy@...p.org
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: replace BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY with
 BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:18:44 +1100
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with what Xen does but why can't Xen just override
> > BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE?
> >
> > Why does Xen need to hook BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE to the iommu_bio_merge
> > parameter (as this patch does)? BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE and the
> > iommu_bio_merge parameter are not related at all.
> >   
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It was convenient to reuse that mechanism, but I can 
> easily re-add something else (which would be more or less identical).

I still don't see how Xen needs something like the virtual merge
(sounds that overriding BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE perfectly works for Xen)
or why Xen needs a new boot parameter for it. The virtual merge just
defines how IOMMUs should work.
--
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/