Hi David,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:15:35PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Surely this isn't specific to the Intel IOMMU? Shouldn't it live
> elsewhere — either in generic IOMMU code or perhaps in generic kexec
> support code?
I put a bigger rework of this on-top of Zhen-Hua's patches, you can find
the result in my x86/vt-d branch. With my patches I also removed this
pointer collecting concept and do the iomap_cache and iounmap calls
before the spin-lock is taken, so this problem is now solved
differently.
> And I think you're misusing VTD_PAGE_{SHIFT,MASK} when you should be
> using the normal PAGE_{SHIFT,MASK}.
I think VT_PAGE_* is correct, since the VT-d driver also runs on ia64.
There the system page-size is different from the VT-d page-size.
>And shouldn't physical addresses be phys_addr_t?
This is changed where appropriate, I hope.
Joerg
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
