[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 7/7] xen/dom0: Add a dom0-iommu=none option
>>> On 21.01.19 at 19:08, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17/01/2019 13:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.01.19 at 10:00, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> @@ -709,6 +709,12 @@ Controls for the dom0 IOMMU setup. >>> This option is enabled by default on x86 systems, and invalid on ARM >>> systems. >>> >>> +* The `none` option is intended for development purposes only, and skips >>> + certain safety checks pertaining to the correct IOMMU configuration for >>> + dom0 to boot. >> Would you mind inserting "PVH" ahead of "dom0"? > > That would result in an inaccurate description of the functionality. > check_hwdom_reqs() is not specific to PVH guests. How is the paging_mode_translate() check your patch actually amends not making this function effectively PVH-specific? Or are you meaning to imply that some hypothetical future addition to the checks affecting PV Dom0 is to be covered here as well? >>> @@ -156,7 +159,7 @@ int iommu_domain_init(struct domain *d) >>> >>> static void __hwdom_init check_hwdom_reqs(struct domain *d) >>> { >>> - if ( !paging_mode_translate(d) ) >>> + if ( iommu_hwdom_none || !paging_mode_translate(d) ) >>> return; >> Seeing the __hwdom_init, wouldn't it be better to restrict this >> relaxation to Xen boot time created Dom0? > > No, I don't think so. > > That would complicate the change (which is already only for use by > developers), and unnecessarily prohibit testing of the late hwdom paths. Well, I don't fully agree, but okay then. Therefore if the answer to the second question above is "yes", then Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |