linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 26/30] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Offer and reclaim allocations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20220302182316.lcagv5ghum4525rm@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 18:23:16 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To:     Iouri Tarassov <iourit@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        spronovo@...rosoft.com, spronovo@...ux.microsoft.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/30] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Offer and reclaim
 allocations

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 10:13:34AM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote:
> 
> On 3/2/2022 6:25 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:46:13AM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote:
> > > Implement ioctls to offer and reclaim compute device allocations:
> > >   - LX_DXOFFERALLOCATIONS,
> > >   - LX_DXRECLAIMALLOCATIONS2
> > > 
> > > When a user mode driver (UMD) does not need to access an allocation,
> >
> > What is a "user mode driver" in this context? Is that something that
> > runs inside the guest?
> 
> Hi Wei,
> 
> The user mode driver runs inside the guest. This driver is written by
> hardware vendors.
> For example, the NVIDIA's Cuda runtime is considered a user mode driver.
> The driver
> provides a specific API to applications (like the Cuda API).
> 
> The cover letter explains the design of the virtual compute device
> paravirtualization
> model and describes all components, which are involved. I feel that I do
> not need to
> include explanation to every patch.

It's fine. I was just asking a question -- I didn't have all the terms
in my head by the time I got to this patch. There is no need to add the 
explanation to every patch.

Thanks,
Wei.

> 
> Thanks
> Iouri
>