> Xen PV IOMMU hypercall interface
>
> A two argument hypercall interface (do_iommu_op).
>
> ret_t do_iommu_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg, unsigned int count)
>
> First argument, guest handle pointer to array of `struct pv_iommu_op`
>
> Second argument,
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 16:24 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 29/06/15 15:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 10:40 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> +ARM devs.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malc
On 29/06/15 15:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 10:40 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> +ARM devs.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
Hi All,
>>>
>>> I had a chat with Malcolm
On 29/06/15 15:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 10:40 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> +ARM devs.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
Hi All,
>>>
>>> I had a chat with Malcolm
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 10:40 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > +ARM devs.
> >
> > On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> >
> > I had a chat with Malcolm about this with respect to ARM.
> >
>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> +ARM devs.
>
> On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> I had a chat with Malcolm about this with respect to ARM.
>
> The upshot is that this does not help us to remove the dom0 1:1
> workaround or
+ARM devs.
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 11:23 +0100, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> Hi All,
I had a chat with Malcolm about this with respect to ARM.
The upshot is that this does not help us to remove the dom0 1:1
workaround or associated swiotlb uses on systems without an SMMU, nor
does it allow us to sens
