On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 03:22 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I see the allure of this, but I think down the road you will
> discover passing a flag in libvirt XML saying
> "please use a secure mode" or whatever is a good idea.
>
> Even thought it is probably not required to address this
> specif
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 10:48 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> Hi Pingfan,
>
> Pingfan Liu writes:
> > Technically speaking, echo 1/0 > cpuX/online is only a subset of cpu
> > hotplug/unplug, i.e. add/remove. The latter one includes the physical
> > adding/removing of a cpu device. Some user space t
On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 03:09 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems that the fact that within guest it's implemented using a bounce
> buffer and that it's easiest to do by switching virtio to use the DMA API
> isn't something virtio spec concerns itself with.
Right, this is my reasoning as wel
On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 01:21 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> No matter if you like it or not (I don't!) virtio is defined to bypass
> dma translations, it is very clearly stated in the spec. It has some
> ill-defined bits to bypass it, so if you want the dma mapping API
> to be used you'll have t
On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 01:15 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> b) a way to document in a virtio-related spec how the bus handles
> dma for Ben's totally fucked up hypervisor. Without that there
> is not way we'll get interoperable implementations.
Christoph, this isn't a totally fucked
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:16:38AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:36:22PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 10:30 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > However the question people raise is that DMA API is already full of
> > > > arch-specific t
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:21:26PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 22:08 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Please go through these patches and review whether this approach
> > > > > broadly
> > > > > makes sense. I will appreciate suggestions, inputs, comments
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:22:11PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> (Appologies if you got this twice, my mailer had a brain fart and I don't
> know if the first one got through & am about to disappear in a plane for 17h)
I got like 3 of these. I hope that's true for everyone as I replied to
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:16:21PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 22:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:58:36AM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:05 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > 2- Make vi
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 01:15:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:17:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > It seems reasonable to teach a platform to override dma-range
> > for a specific device e.g. in case it knows about bugs in ACPI.
>
> A platform will be able
On 08/03/2018 02:23 PM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 11:15 AM, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> Hello:
>> I have been observing an anomaly during LPAR migrations between
>> a couple of P8 systems.
>>
>> This is the problem. After migrating an LPAR, the PPC mobility code
>> receives RTAS re
On 08/04/2018 07:25 AM, zhong jiang wrote:
> for_each_node_by_name iterators only exit normally when the loop
> cursor is NULL, So there is no point to call of_node_put.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang
Reviewed-by: Tyrel Datwyler
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/feature.c | 2 --
> 1 f
for_each_node_by_name iterators only exit normally when the loop
cursor is NULL, So there is no point to call of_node_put.
Signed-off-by: zhong jiang
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/feature.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/feature.c
b/a
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > [forgot the conflict resolution ...]
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a c
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 10:17:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> It seems reasonable to teach a platform to override dma-range
> for a specific device e.g. in case it knows about bugs in ACPI.
A platform will be able override dma-range using the dev->bus_dma_mask
field starting in 4.19. But
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:58:46PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> You are saying something along the lines of "I don't like an
> instruction in your ISA, let's not support your entire CPU architecture
> in Linux".
No. I'm saying if you can't describe your architecture in the virtio
spec d
16 matches
Mail list logo
