On 18/02/2021 23:59, Frederic Barrat wrote:
On 16/02/2021 04:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU group
to pass through a device to a VM, we lock these
On 20/02/2021 14:49, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 18/02/2021 23:59, Frederic Barrat wrote:
On 16/02/2021 04:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU
group
On 18/02/2021 23:59, Frederic Barrat wrote:
On 16/02/2021 04:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU group
to pass through a device to a VM, we lock these
On 16/02/2021 04:20, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU group
to pass through a device to a VM, we lock these spinlocks which triggers
a false negative warning
The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU group
to pass through a device to a VM, we lock these spinlocks which triggers
a false negative warning in lockdep (below).
This fixes it by annotating the
