| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/6] iommu: Introduce iommu_flush and iommu_flush
On 08/11 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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?
>
These functions are only here to counter balance the dont_flush_iotlb_flag.
If they don't acknowlage this flag doing nothing is the right thing to do.
That said I can probably implement a naive version for the AMD iommu
that will use amd_iommu_flush_pages once or in a loop.
Obviously I will remove the check for the non existing callback if I do
that as it become mandatory.
Jean
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home