>>> On 12.11.14 at 11:18, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2014/11/12 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 12.11.14 at 04:05, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
>>> I don't see any feedback to this point, so I think you still prefer we
>>> should do all check in the callback function.
>>
>> As a draft this looks reasonable, but there are various bugs to be
>> dealt with along with cosmetic issues (I'll point out the former, but
>> I'm tired of pointing out the latter once again - please go back to
>> earlier reviews of patches to refresh e.g. what types to use for
>> loop variables).
>>
>>> I tried to address this but obviously we have to pass each 'pdf' to
>>> callback functions,
>>
>> Yes, but at the generic IOMMU layer this shouldn't be named "bdf",
>> but something more neutral (maybe "id"). And you again lost the
> 
> Okay.
> 
>> segment there.
> 
> I think we don't need segment since when we passthrough a device, that 
> domain doesn't matter with the real segment in phydev.

How can this not matter? If 0001:bb:dd.f is associated with an RMRR
but 0000:bb:dd.f isn't, it's quite relevant which one is being handed
to a guest.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Reply via email to