[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YlpdBHKT1bYzZe2e@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:07:00 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <olekstysh@...il.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Julien Grall <julien@....org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] arm/xen: Assign xen-virtio DMA ops for virtio
devices in Xen guests
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:02:45PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> This makes sense overall. Considering that the swiotlb-xen case and the
> virtio case are mutually exclusive, I would write it like this:
Curious question: Why can't the same grant scheme also be used for
non-virtio devices? I really hate having virtio hooks in the arch
dma code. Why can't Xen just say in DT/ACPI that grants can be used
for a given device?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists