>>> On 12.04.17 at 05:56, <chao....@intel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 04:32:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 12.04.17 at 04:41, <chao....@intel.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:57:23AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 12.04.17 at 02:04, <chao....@intel.com> wrote: >>>>> + * If a caller want an atomic update from the views of VT-d >>>> >>>>wants >>>> >>>>Also what do you mean by "from the views of VT-d"? >>> >>> OK. will fix this too. Do you mean it is (and should be) atomic from >>> software's view >>> , so these words are redundant. >> >>I don't mean anything here until I understand what you mean. >> > > I think making this update presented to VT-d hardware as an atomic update > is this function's goal. Is that right? That's why I said "from the views fo > VT-d".
"If the caller wants VT-d hardware to always see a consistent entry ..." perhaps? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
