On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:31:29 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:41PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:40:48 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:38:11PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:31:29 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:41PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:40:48 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The majority of the names (include/linux/iommu.h, iommu.c,
iommu_ops, etc) looks too generic? We already have lots of
similar things (e.g. arch/{x86,ia64}/asm/iommu.h, several
archs' iommu.c, etc). Such names are
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:02:09PM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The majority of the names (include/linux/iommu.h, iommu.c,
iommu_ops, etc) looks too generic? We already have lots of
similar things (e.g.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:02:09 +0200
Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The majority of the names (include/linux/iommu.h, iommu.c,
iommu_ops, etc) looks too generic? We already have lots of
similar things (e.g.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:18:39PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:02:09 +0200
Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
The majority of the names (include/linux/iommu.h, iommu.c,
iommu_ops, etc)
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hmm, is there any hardware IOMMU with which we can't emulate domains by
partitioning the IO address space? This concept works for GART and
Calgary.
Is partitioning secure? Domain X's user could program its hardware to
dma to domain Y's addresses, zapping away Domain
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hmm, is there any hardware IOMMU with which we can't emulate domains by
partitioning the IO address space? This concept works for GART and
Calgary.
Is partitioning secure? Domain X's user could
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:33:11 +0200
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hmm, is there any hardware IOMMU with which we can't emulate domains by
partitioning the IO address space? This concept works for GART and
Calgary.
Is partitioning secure? Domain X's user
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:58:29AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:33:11 +0200
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hmm, is there any hardware IOMMU with which we can't emulate domains by
partitioning the IO address space? This concept works for
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:58:29AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:33:11 +0200
Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hmm, is there any hardware IOMMU with which we can't emulate domains by
partitioning the IO address space? This concept works for
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:50:36AM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
Joerg Roedel wrote:
+struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain_alloc(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct iommu_domain *domain;
+ int ret;
+
+ domain = kmalloc(sizeof(*domain), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!domain)
+ return
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:40:48 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/base/iommu.c | 94
++
1 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:41PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:40:48 +0100
Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/base/iommu.c | 94
++
1 files
Joerg Roedel wrote:
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/base/iommu.c | 94
++ 1 files changed,
94 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644
drivers/base/iommu.c
diff --git a/drivers/base/iommu.c
15 matches
Mail list logo
