Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:10:55PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
The new one,
It looks almost okay. The last one.
diff -r 02c8733e2d91 xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c
--- a/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c Wed Oct 22 17:20:15 2008 +0900
+++ b/xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c
Applied, thanks.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:02:21AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:10:55PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
The new one,
It looks almost okay. The last one.
diff -r 02c8733e2d91 xen/arch/ia64/vmx/viosapic.c
---
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:56:05PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Yes, it is not SMP-safe there is lock for p2m.
Modifying p2m is not a frequent operation, why not add a lock for it?
It is frequent to read p2m
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:56:05PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Yes, it is not SMP-safe there is lock for p2m.
Modifying p2m is not a frequent operation, why not add a lock for
it?
It is
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:30:50PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:56:05PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Yes, it is not SMP-safe there is lock for p2m.
Modifying p2m
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:30:50PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:56:05PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Yes, it is not SMP-safe there is lock for
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:50:40PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:30:50PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:56:05PM
The new one,
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
for this + * device needs to retain to UC attribute
+ */
+if (phy_pte.ma == VA_MATTR_WC)
phy_pte.ma = VA_MATTR_WB;
Doesn't this break the
Hi Anthony,
Xu, Anthony writes:
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
for this + * device needs to retain to UC attribute
+ */
+if (phy_pte.ma == VA_MATTR_WC)
phy_pte.ma = VA_MATTR_WB;
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:35:36PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
The new one,
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
for this + * device needs to retain to UC attribute
+ */
+if (phy_pte.ma == VA_MATTR_WC)
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:03:55AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:35:36PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
The new one,
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
for this + *
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:03:55AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:35:36PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
The new one,
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain through VTD, the MMIO
for
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:31:20AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Iommu_un/map_page does nothing for PV domain.
Why is there a race?
Oh sorry. I'm not very familiar with iommu code (yet).
My understanding is
iommu_domain_init() is called unconditionaly by arch_domain_create()
so that
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:31:20AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Iommu_un/map_page does nothing for PV domain.
Why is there a race?
Oh sorry. I'm not very familiar with iommu code (yet).
My understanding is
iommu_domain_init() is called unconditionaly by
Xu, Anthony wrote:
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:31:20AM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
Iommu_un/map_page does nothing for PV domain.
Why is there a race?
Oh sorry. I'm not very familiar with iommu code (yet).
My understanding is
iommu_domain_init() is called unconditionaly
Hi shimura
I only tested in old version 18134.
I can reproduce it.
And I find another way to handle it,
Will send out patch soon.
Thanks,
anthony
Kouya Shimura wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Xu, Anthony writes:
-if (phy_pte.ma != VA_MATTR_NATPAGE)
+/* if a device is assigned to a domain
[I added Kyouya and Akio to CC for comments on the hunk in vtlb.c]
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:38:21PM +0800, Xu, Anthony wrote:
other small patches for VTD
Signed-off-by: Anthony Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch is based on #Cset 18673 of xen-devel
Thanks,
Anthony
The patch touches
Isaku Yamahata wrote:
Doesn't this break the intention of the c/s 15134:466f71b1e831?a
To be honest, I'm not sure. Kyouya or Akio, do you have any comments?
maddr = ((maddr _PAGE_PPN_MASK) PAGE_MASK) | (paddr
~PAGE_MASK);
diff -r e1ed3e5cd001 xen/arch/ia64/xen/domain.c
---
18 matches
Mail list logo
