On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:06:39PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > Also is bit 56+ a set of values, so is there 1 << 56 and 3 << 56 as well?
> > Seems
> > like even that other patch doesn't fully define these "pfn" values.
>
> I realized that the bit numbers have changed, it is no longer bits 60
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 09:53:56AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:12:59AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:56:14PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Bit
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 09:12:59AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:56:14PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Bits 60:56 in the rmap entry will be used to identify the
> > > + * different us
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:39:11PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Bharata B Rao [bhar...@linux.ibm.com] wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:02:19PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Where do we serialize two threads attempting to H_SVM_PAGE_IN the same gfn
> at the same time? Or one thread
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:56:14PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Bits 60:56 in the rmap entry will be used to identify the
> > + * different uses/functions of rmap.
> > + */
> > +#define KVMPPC_RMAP_DEVM_PFN (0
Bharata B Rao [bhar...@linux.ibm.com] wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:02:19PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > Some minor comments/questions below. Overall, the patches look
> > fine to me.
> >
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +#include
> > > +
> > > +static struc
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:56:14PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> +/*
> + * Bits 60:56 in the rmap entry will be used to identify the
> + * different uses/functions of rmap.
> + */
> +#define KVMPPC_RMAP_DEVM_PFN (0x2ULL << 56)
How did you come up with this specific value?
> +
> +static inline boo
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:02:19PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Some minor comments/questions below. Overall, the patches look
> fine to me.
>
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +
> > +static struct dev_pagemap kvmppc_devm_pgmap;
> > +static unsigned long *kvmpp
Some minor comments/questions below. Overall, the patches look
fine to me.
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +
> +static struct dev_pagemap kvmppc_devm_pgmap;
> +static unsigned long *kvmppc_devm_pfn_bitmap;
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kvmppc_devm_pfn_lock);
Is this lock protect
KVMPPC driver to manage page transitions of secure guest
via H_SVM_PAGE_IN and H_SVM_PAGE_OUT hcalls.
H_SVM_PAGE_IN: Move the content of a normal page to secure page
H_SVM_PAGE_OUT: Move the content of a secure page to normal page
Private ZONE_DEVICE memory equal to the amount of secure memory
av
10 matches
Mail list logo
