On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:02:00 +0100 Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 14:35 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > I don't think that we need to take account of dom0 support; we don't > > have a clear idea about an acceptable dom0 design (it needs to use > > swiotlb code? I don't know yet), we don't even know we will have dom0 > > support in mainline. That's why I didn't CC this patchset to Xen > > camp. > > The core domain 0 patches which were the subject of the discussions a > few week back are completely orthogonal to the swiotlb side of things ? If we don't merge dom0 patch, we don't need dom0 changes to swiotlb. We don't know we would have dom0 support in mainline. Or I overlooked something? > and whatever form they eventually take I do not think it will have any > impact on the shape of the solution which we arrive at for swiotlb. I > don't think that assuming that domain 0 can never be done in a way which > everyone finds acceptable and therefore discounting all consideration of > it is a useful way to make progress with these issues. > > The DMA use case is much more tightly tied to the paravirtualized MMU > (which is already in the kernel for domU purposes) than it is to "the > domain 0" patches anyway. Although domain 0 is probably the main use > case, at least today, swiotlb support is also used in a Xen domU as part > of the support for direct assignment of PCI devices to paravirtualised > guests (pci passthrough). > > The pci frontend driver depends on some bits of the domain 0 physical > interrupt patches as well as swiotlb which is why I/we haven't tried to > upstream that particular series yet. As far as I know, you have not posted anything about changes to swiotlb for domU. I can't discuss it. If you want, please send patches. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
