On 2013/11/20 23:59, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:46 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> I don't know the IOMMU drivers well either, but it seems like they
>> rely on notifications of device addition and removal (see
>> iommu_bus_notifier()). It doesn't seem right for them to
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:46 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> I don't know the IOMMU drivers well either, but it seems like they
> rely on notifications of device addition and removal (see
> iommu_bus_notifier()). It doesn't seem right for them to also use the
> generic PCI interfaces like
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:46 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I don't know the IOMMU drivers well either, but it seems like they
rely on notifications of device addition and removal (see
iommu_bus_notifier()). It doesn't seem right for them to also use the
generic PCI interfaces like
On 2013/11/20 23:59, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:46 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I don't know the IOMMU drivers well either, but it seems like they
rely on notifications of device addition and removal (see
iommu_bus_notifier()). It doesn't seem right for them to also use
>> Hmmm, this is the thing I am most worried about. If we just only use
>> (pci_dev *) poninter in drhd->devices array as a identification. Change
>> (pci_dev *) pointer instead of pci device id segment:bus:devfn is safe.
>> Or, this is a wrong way to fix this issue. I don't know IOMMU driver much
Hmmm, this is the thing I am most worried about. If we just only use
(pci_dev *) poninter in drhd-devices array as a identification. Change
(pci_dev *) pointer instead of pci device id segment:bus:devfn is safe.
Or, this is a wrong way to fix this issue. I don't know IOMMU driver much
now,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> HI Bjorn,
>Thanks for your review and comments very much!
>
>>> +list_for_each_entry(dmar_dev, head, list)
>>> +if (dmar_dev->segment == pci_domain_nr(dev->bus)
>>> +&& dmar_dev->bus ==
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Yijing Wang wangyij...@huawei.com wrote:
HI Bjorn,
Thanks for your review and comments very much!
+list_for_each_entry(dmar_dev, head, list)
+if (dmar_dev-segment == pci_domain_nr(dev-bus)
+ dmar_dev-bus
HI Bjorn,
Thanks for your review and comments very much!
>> +list_for_each_entry(dmar_dev, head, list)
>> +if (dmar_dev->segment == pci_domain_nr(dev->bus)
>> +&& dmar_dev->bus == dev->bus->number
>> +&&
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:24:58PM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote:
> Currently, DMAR driver save target pci devices pointers for drhd/rmrr/atsr
> in (pci_dev *) array. This is not safe, because pci devices maybe
> hot added or removed during system running. They will have new pci_dev *
> pointer. So if
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:24:58PM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote:
Currently, DMAR driver save target pci devices pointers for drhd/rmrr/atsr
in (pci_dev *) array. This is not safe, because pci devices maybe
hot added or removed during system running. They will have new pci_dev *
pointer. So if
HI Bjorn,
Thanks for your review and comments very much!
+list_for_each_entry(dmar_dev, head, list)
+if (dmar_dev-segment == pci_domain_nr(dev-bus)
+ dmar_dev-bus == dev-bus-number
+ dmar_dev-devfn == dev-devfn)
+
Currently, DMAR driver save target pci devices pointers for drhd/rmrr/atsr
in (pci_dev *) array. This is not safe, because pci devices maybe
hot added or removed during system running. They will have new pci_dev *
pointer. So if there have two IOMMUs or more in system, these devices
will find a
Currently, DMAR driver save target pci devices pointers for drhd/rmrr/atsr
in (pci_dev *) array. This is not safe, because pci devices maybe
hot added or removed during system running. They will have new pci_dev *
pointer. So if there have two IOMMUs or more in system, these devices
will find a
14 matches
Mail list logo
