[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 05/11] IOMMU/MMU: propagate IOMMU Device-TLB flush error up to iommu_iotlb_flush{, _all} (top level ones)
- To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:55:55 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc: "dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx" <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xu, Quan" <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:56:11 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
- Thread-index: AQHRwkwI3/lIeZ3xVEyrH+nd5XxQOZ/laJJw
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 05/11] IOMMU/MMU: propagate IOMMU Device-TLB flush error up to iommu_iotlb_flush{, _all} (top level ones)
> From: Julien Grall [mailto:julien.grall@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:40 PM
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 09/06/16 13:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 09.06.16 at 14:24, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> So the behavior of iommu_iotlb_flush is up to the IOMMU driver. Whilst
> >> the behavior of iommu_{,un}map_page are defined by the common code.
> >
> > I'm certainly up for moving the logic up to the generic IOMMU layer,
> > if that's feasible.
>
> That would be my preference.
>
I suppose above comment is for "[Patch v11 0/3] VT-d Device-TLB flush
issue", where the crash logic better be moved up. Do you have further
against on this patch then?
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
