On 13.12.2019 14:29, Durrant, Paul wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Sent: 13 December 2019 13:26 >> >> On 13.12.2019 14:12, Durrant, Paul wrote: >>>> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org> On Behalf Of Jan >>>> Beulich >>>> Sent: 13 December 2019 12:53 >>>> >>>> +#define IOMMU_quarantine_none 0 >>>> +#define IOMMU_quarantine_basic 1 >>>> +#define IOMMU_quarantine_full 2 >>>> +uint8_t __read_mostly iommu_quarantine = IOMMU_quarantine_basic; >>> >>> If we have 'IOMMU_quarantine_sink' instead of 'IOMMU_quarantine_full', >>> then how about 'IOMMU_quarantine_write_fault' instead of >>> 'IOMMU_quarantine_basic'? >> >> Why "write_fault"? Even in "full" mode you only avoid read faults >> aiui (see also above). So if anything "write_fault" would be a >> replacement for "full"; "basic" could be replaced by just "fault" >> then. > > Sorry, yes, I had things the wrong way round. "fault" and "write_fault" sound > good.
But the resulting command line option (iommu=quarantine=write-fault) would then be quite a bit less nice imo, compare to the brief "full". (I'm tempted to suggest "nrf" for "no read fault", but I guess that's too ugly an acronym.) Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
