>>> On 10.04.16 at 16:28, wrote:
> On April 05, 2016 5:48pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 01.04.16 at 16:47, wrote:
>> > +{
>> > +ASSERT(pdev->domain);
>> > +list_del(&pdev->domain_list);
>> > +pdev->domain = NULL;
>> > +pci_hide_existing_d
On April 05, 2016 5:48pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.04.16 at 16:47, wrote:
> > +static void dev_invalidate_iotlb_timeout(struct iommu *iommu, u16 did,
> > + u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn)
> {
> > +struct domain *d = NULL;
> > +struct pci_dev *pdev;
>>> On 01.04.16 at 16:47, wrote:
> If Device-TLB flush timed out, we would hide the target ATS
Please re-consider the use of the word "would" in all your patch
descriptions.
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/qinval.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/qinval.c
> @@ -217,6 +217,58 @@ static in
