>>> 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
