Hi Jacob,
On 4/15/20 5:59 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:52:10 +0200
> Auger Eric wrote:
>
>> Hi Jacob,
>> On 4/15/20 12:15 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> There are some discussions about how to size the uAPI data.
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/14/939
>>>
>>> I
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:52:10 +0200
Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
> On 4/15/20 12:15 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > There are some discussions about how to size the uAPI data.
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/14/939
> >
> > I think the problem with the current scheme is that when
Hi Jacob,
On 4/15/20 12:15 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> There are some discussions about how to size the uAPI data.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/14/939
>
> I think the problem with the current scheme is that when uAPI data gets
> extended, if VFIO continue to use:
>
> minsz =
Hi Eric,
There are some discussions about how to size the uAPI data.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/14/939
I think the problem with the current scheme is that when uAPI data gets
extended, if VFIO continue to use:
minsz = offsetofend(struct vfio_iommu_type1_set_pasid_table, config);
if
From: Jacob Pan
In virtualization use case, when a guest is assigned
a PCI host device, protected by a virtual IOMMU on the guest,
the physical IOMMU must be programmed to be consistent with
the guest mappings. If the physical IOMMU supports two
translation stages it makes sense to program guest
