On 21/09/17 07:27, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 7:55 PM
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 28/08/17 08:39, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> Here comes some comments:
>>>
>>> 1.1 Motivation
>>>
>>> You describe I/O page faults handling as future work. Seems
On 20/09/17 10:37, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> On 19/09/2017 12:47, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> 2.6.7
>>> - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments:
>>> At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 7:55 PM
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 28/08/17 08:39, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > Here comes some comments:
> >
> > 1.1 Motivation
> >
> > You describe I/O page faults handling as future work. Seems you
> considered
> > only recoverable fault
Hi Jean,
On 19/09/2017 12:47, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote:
>> 2.6.7
>> - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments:
>> At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags is missing in your
>> header. As such I
Hi Eric,
On 12/09/17 18:13, Auger Eric wrote:
> 2.6.7
> - As I am currently integrating v0.4 in QEMU here are some other comments:
> At the moment struct virtio_iommu_req_probe flags is missing in your
> header. As such I understood the ACK protocol was not implemented by the
> driver in your
; kevin.t...@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio-iommu version 0.4
>
> Hi jean,
>
> On 04/08/2017 20:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para-
> > virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes s
Hi jean,
On 04/08/2017 20:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para-
> virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes since last time [1]:
>
> * The virtio-iommu document now resembles an actual specification. It is
> split into
Hi Kevin,
On 28/08/17 08:39, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Here comes some comments:
>
> 1.1 Motivation
>
> You describe I/O page faults handling as future work. Seems you considered
> only recoverable fault (since "aka. PCI PRI" being used). What about other
> unrecoverable faults e.g. what to do if a
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 6:01 PM
>
> On 04/08/17 19:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > Other extensions are in preparation. I won't detail them here because
> v0.4
> > already is a lot to digest, but in short,
On 04/08/17 19:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Other extensions are in preparation. I won't detail them here because v0.4
> already is a lot to digest, but in short, building on top of PROBE:
>
> * First, since the IOMMU is paravirtualized, the device can expose some
> properties of the
On 14/08/17 09:27, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> * First, since the IOMMU is paravirtualized, the device can expose some
>> properties of the physical topology to the guest, and let it allocate
>> resources more efficiently. For example, when the virtio-iommu manages
>> both physical and emulated
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker [mailto:jean-philippe.bruc...@arm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 2:19 AM
>
> This is the continuation of my proposal for virtio-iommu, the para-
> virtualized IOMMU. Here is a summary of the changes since last time [1]:
>
> * The virtio-iommu document now
12 matches
Mail list logo
