> -----Original Message----- > From: George Dunlap [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 11 July 2018 10:10 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; George Dunlap > <[email protected]>; Ian Jackson <[email protected]>; Jan > Beulich <[email protected]>; Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; Tim > (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; Wei Liu <[email protected]>; Daniel De Graaf > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] public / x86: introduce > __HYPERCALL_iommu_op > > On 07/07/2018 12:05 PM, Paul Durrant wrote: > > +long do_iommu_op(unsigned int nr_bufs, > > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_iommu_op_buf_t) bufs) > > +{ > > + unsigned int i; > > + long rc; > > + > > + rc = xsm_iommu_op(XSM_PRIV, current->domain); > > My only comment here is, doesn't this mean that XSM can only provide > "yes/no" functionality for this entire hypercall, rather than being able > to enable or disable individual operations?
That's true. I had not really considered the need to have finer grained control, but since you queried it, I'll re-work it so that it is possible to veto individual ops. Paul > > -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
