>On 04.12.2015 at 2:55pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.t...@intel.com> 12/04/15 2:49 AM >>>
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 9:16 PM
> >> >>> On 03.12.15 at 09:09, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > If impacted domain is Dom0 or hardware domain, just throw out a
> warning.
> >> > It's an open here whether we want to kill
> >> > Dom0 or hardware domain (or directly panic hypervisor).
> >> > Comments are welcomed.
> >>
> >> I think that's a reasonable default, provided by that "Dom0 or
> >> hardware domain" you really just mean the same domain known with two
> >> different names (i.e. Dom0 should not be special when it is not the
> >> hardware domain).
> >
> >Are you suggest just checking hardware_domain should be enough in the
> code?
>
> Yes, absolutely.
Jan,
Any more comment or suggestion?
Now there are 2 comments from you and Kevin Tian.
1. from you, just checking g hardware_domain should be enough.
2. from Kevin Tian, do timeout check within dev_invalidate_iotlb for each ATS
device, to identify bogus device accurately.
I can fix these 2 comments and send out v2 patch set.
-Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
