On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 21:59 -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Here's a completely untested work-in-progress that attempts to fix that.
> I'll be able to test it myself on about Tuesday when I'm home from New
> Orleans and awake...
Or might have been if my laptop's hard drive hadn't died. Here's an
u
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 23:15 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 15:46 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 21:11 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > I wouldn't bother to go looking for opportunities to use super pages if
> > > we remove the last non-SP-capable I
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 15:46 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 21:11 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I wouldn't bother to go looking for opportunities to use super pages if
> > we remove the last non-SP-capable IOMMU from the domain.
>
> I predict bugs getting filed if a guest
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 21:11 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 13:44 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 19:52 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 11:36 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodho
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 13:44 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 19:52 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 11:36 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > Why would it ever care? If it *happens* to map
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 19:52 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 11:36 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Why would it ever care? If it *happens* to map something that can use
> > > large pages, yay!. If it subsequently
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 11:36 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Why would it ever care? If it *happens* to map something that can use
> > large pages, yay!. If it subsequently breaks apart those large pages by
> > unmapping 4KiB in the middl
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:54 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:59:00PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is it
> > > actually clearly documented anywhere?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:05:13PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:54 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree that this should be documented since it is quite
> > non-standard/non-obvious behaviour of a function. The reason the
> > interface was implemented this way is
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:54 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:59:00PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is it
> > actually clearly documented anywhere? Why on earth is it not just
> > returning void, and expected to un
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:54 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:59:00PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is it
> > actually clearly documented anywhere? Why on earth is it not just
> > returning void, and expected to un
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:59:00PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is it
> actually clearly documented anywhere? Why on earth is it not just
> returning void, and expected to unmap what it was *asked* to unmap?
Yeah, I agree that this shou
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 02:24 +, Shankar, Hari wrote:
> Patch Description: The patch is for Intel IOMMU driver. It forces
> IOMMU TLB flush for the particular domain and return correct unmap
> size when intel_iommu_unmap() is called
I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is i
Patch Description: The patch is for Intel IOMMU driver. It forces IOMMU TLB
flush for the particular domain and return correct unmap size when
intel_iommu_unmap() is called
The patch is generated on Linux kernel version 3.6.11
--- linux/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c.orig 2013-09-01 10:10:14.
Hi Alex,
See inline,
On 9/2/13 9:25 PM, "Alex Williamson" wrote:
>Hi Hari,
>
>On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 02:24 +, Shankar, Hari wrote:
>> Patch Description: The patch is for Intel IOMMU driver. It forces IOMMU
>>TLB flush for the particular domain and return correct unmap size when
>>intel_iommu_
On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 04:05 +, Shankar, Hari wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> See inline,
>
> On 9/2/13 9:25 PM, "Alex Williamson" wrote:
>
> >Hi Hari,
> >
> >On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 02:24 +, Shankar, Hari wrote:
> >> Patch Description: The patch is for Intel IOMMU driver. It forces IOMMU
> >>TLB flush
Hi Hari,
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 02:24 +, Shankar, Hari wrote:
> Patch Description: The patch is for Intel IOMMU driver. It forces IOMMU TLB
> flush for the particular domain and return correct unmap size when
> intel_iommu_unmap() is called
"Patch Description:" is unnecessary. Look at other
17 matches
Mail list logo