WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] iommu: Introduce iommu_flush and iommu_flush

>>> On 07.11.11 at 18:06, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/11 04:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 07.11.11 at 16:16, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> > Signed-off-by: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c     |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>> >  xen/include/xen/iommu.h             |    5 +++++
>> >  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> 
>> In iommu_iotlb_flush() you check whether the to-be-called function
>> pointer is NULL, whereas in iommu_iotlb_flush_all() you don't. I
>> actually think the second behavior is the correct one, but that
>> implies that you need to also implement respective AMD IOMMU
>> functions.
>> 
> 
> Yes, It's an error on my part. I've updated the patch to check
> for the present of iotlb_flush_all before I call it now.

But as said, I don't think this is the right solution: How can it be
correct on non-Intel hardware to have these functions simply do
nothing?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>