On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:16:38AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:36:22PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 10:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > However the question people raise is that DMA API is already full of
> > > > arch-specific
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:22:11PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> (Appologies if you got this twice, my mailer had a brain fart and I don't
> know if the first one got through & am about to disappear in a plane for 17h)
I got like 3 of these. I hope that's true for everyone as I replied
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:21:26PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 22:08 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Please go through these patches and review whether this approach
> > > > > broadly
> > > > > makes sense. I will appreciate suggestions, inputs,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 01:15:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:17:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > It seems reasonable to teach a platform to override dma-range
> > for a specific device e.g. in case it knows about bugs in ACPI.
>
> A platform will be
From: Jason Wang
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:04:51 +0800
> So fixing this by introducing a new message type with an explicit
> 32bit reserved field after type like:
>
> struct vhost_msg_v2 {
> int type;
> __u32 reserved;
Please use fixed sized types consistently. Use 's32' instead
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:16:21PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 22:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:58:36AM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:05 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > 2- Make
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 03:09 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems that the fact that within guest it's implemented using a bounce
> buffer and that it's easiest to do by switching virtio to use the DMA API
> isn't something virtio spec concerns itself with.
Right, this is my reasoning as
On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 01:21 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> No matter if you like it or not (I don't!) virtio is defined to bypass
> dma translations, it is very clearly stated in the spec. It has some
> ill-defined bits to bypass it, so if you want the dma mapping API
> to be used you'll have
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 03:22 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I see the allure of this, but I think down the road you will
> discover passing a flag in libvirt XML saying
> "please use a secure mode" or whatever is a good idea.
>
> Even thought it is probably not required to address this
>
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:58:46PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> You are saying something along the lines of "I don't like an
> instruction in your ISA, let's not support your entire CPU architecture
> in Linux".
No. I'm saying if you can't describe your architecture in the virtio
spec
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:17:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems reasonable to teach a platform to override dma-range
> for a specific device e.g. in case it knows about bugs in ACPI.
A platform will be able override dma-range using the dev->bus_dma_mask
field starting in 4.19. But
11 matches
Mail list logo
