On 26.04.2017 12:08, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
On 26/04/17 07:53, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
+mutex_lock(&device->tasks_lock);
+list_for_each_entry(vfio_task, &device->tasks, list) {
+if (vfio_task->pasid != svm.pasid)
+continue;
+
+ret = iom
On 26/04/17 07:53, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> +mutex_lock(&device->tasks_lock);
>> +list_for_each_entry(vfio_task, &device->tasks, list) {
>> +if (vfio_task->pasid != svm.pasid)
>> +continue;
>> +
>> +ret = iommu_unbind_task(device->dev, svm.pas
Hi Jean,
On 27.02.2017 20:54, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
Add two new ioctl for VFIO devices. VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_TASK creates a bond
between a device and a process address space, identified by a
device-specific ID named PASID. This allows the device to target DMA
transactions at the process virtu
on ;
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; Harv Abdulhamid ;
> linux-...@vger.kernel.org; Bjorn Helgaas ; David
> Woodhouse ; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; Nate
> Watterson ; Tian, Kevin ;
> Lan, Tianyu ; Raj, Ashok ; Pan,
> Jacob
> jun ; Joerg Roedel ; Robin Murphy
>
&g
On 24/03/17 07:46, Liu, Yi L wrote:
[...]
So we need some kind of high-level classification that the vIOMMU
must communicate to the physical one. Each IOMMU flavor would get a
unique, global identifier, simply to make sure that vIOMMU and pIOMMU speak
>> the same language.
n ; Joerg Roedel ; Robin Murphy
>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 29/30] vfio: Add support for Shared Virtual Memory
>
> On 23/03/17 08:39, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > Thx for the excellent ideas. Pls refer to comments inline.
> >
> > [...]
>
On 23/03/17 08:39, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Thx for the excellent ideas. Pls refer to comments inline.
>
> [...]
>
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> I'm working on virtual SVM, and have some comments on the VFIO channel
>>> definition.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the comments, this is quite interesting to
Hi Jean,
Thx for the excellent ideas. Pls refer to comments inline.
[...]
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > I'm working on virtual SVM, and have some comments on the VFIO channel
> > definition.
>
> Thanks a lot for the comments, this is quite interesting to me. I just have
> some
> concerns about portabil
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:37:56 +
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > For invalidation, I've following info in in pseudo code.
> > struct iommu_svm_tlb_invalidate_info
> > {
> >__u32 inv_type;
> > #define IOTLB_INV (1 << 0)
> > #define EXTENDED_IOTLB_INV (1 << 1)
On 21/03/17 07:04, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> I'm working on virtual SVM, and have some comments on the VFIO channel
> definition.
Thanks a lot for the comments, this is quite interesting to me. I just
have some concerns about portability so I'm proposing a way to be slightly
more generic be
Hi Jean,
I'm working on virtual SVM, and have some comments on the VFIO channel
definition.
> -Original Message-
> From: iommu-boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org [mailto:iommu-
> boun...@lists.linux-foundation.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Brucker
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:55
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the feedback!
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 08:54:09PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:54:40 +
> Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
[...]
> >
> > +static long vfio_svm_ioctl(struct vfio_device *device, unsigned int cmd,
> > + unsigned lon
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:54:40 +
Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Add two new ioctl for VFIO devices. VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_TASK creates a bond
> between a device and a process address space, identified by a
> device-specific ID named PASID. This allows the device to target DMA
> transactions at the p
13 matches
Mail list logo