On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Also, wouldn't there be a problem with something trying to use that > interface to keep in sync a secondary device MMU such as the DRM or > other accelerators, which might need virtual address based > invalidation ?
Yes just doing the rmap based solution would have required DRM etc to maintain their own rmaps. So it looks that we need to go with both variants. Note that secondary device MMUs that need to run code outside of atomic context may still need to create their own rmaps. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
