On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 01:10:55 +0000 "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Jacob Pan [mailto:jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:41 AM > > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:17:43 +0100 > > Joerg Roedel <j...@8bytes.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > How about a 'struct iommu_sva' with an iommu-private definition > > > that is returned by this function: > > > > > > struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device > > > *dev, struct mm_struct *mm); > > > > > Just trying to understand how to use this API. > > So if we bind the same mm to two different devices, we should get > > two different iommu_sva handle, right? > > I think intel-svm still needs a flag argument for supervisor pasid > > etc. Other than that, I think both interface should work for vt-d. > > > > Another question is that for nested SVA, we will need to bind guest > > mm. Do you think we should try to reuse this or have it separate? I > > am working on a separate API for now. > > > > It has to be different. Host doesn't know guest mm. > > Also note that from virtualization p.o.v we just focus on 'nested > translation' in host side. The 1st level may point to guest CPU > page table (SVA), or IOVA page table. In that manner, the API > (as currently defined in your series) is purely about setting up > nested translation on VFIO assigned device. > Sounds good, will keep them separate. _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
