On May 12, 2016 9:38 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.05.16 at 15:29, wrote:
> > On May 12, 2016 4:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 12.05.16 at 09:50, wrote:
> >> > On May 10, 2016 12:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -1391,13 +1399,19 @@ i
>>> On 12.05.16 at 15:29, wrote:
> On May 12, 2016 4:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 12.05.16 at 09:50, wrote:
>> > On May 10, 2016 12:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
>> >> > -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned
>> >> > long gfn,
On May 12, 2016 4:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.05.16 at 09:50, wrote:
> > On May 10, 2016 12:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
> >> > -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned
> >> > long gfn, unsigned int page_count)
> >> > +static v
>>> On 12.05.16 at 09:50, wrote:
> On May 10, 2016 12:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
>> > -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned long
>> > gfn, unsigned int page_count)
>> > +static void iommu_flush_iotlb_page(struct domain *d, unsigned lon
On May 10, 2016 12:10 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
> > -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned long
> > gfn, unsigned int page_count)
> > +static void iommu_flush_iotlb_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
> > +
>>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, wrote:
> -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
> unsigned int page_count)
> +static void iommu_flush_iotlb_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
> + unsigned int page_count)
The new name suggests
The propagation value from IOMMU flush interfaces may be positive, which
indicates callers need to flush cache, not one of faliures.
when the propagation value is positive, this patch fixes this flush issue
as follows:
- call iommu_flush_write_buffer() to flush cache.
- return zero.
Signed-of
