On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 04:12:52PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > hvm_directio is set when iommu is enabled, but in fact iommu is not > > tied to HVM. In order to not break existing tools, expose a new flag > > directio for (iommu_enabled && !hvm_enabled). > > > > RFC This doesn't build at the moment. Do we care about that flag being > > inaccurate? > > I think there is no hardware out there with an IOMMU that don't have > virtualization extensions (ie: having VTd but not VTx for example), > but maybe I'm wrong.
The question is whether it makes sense to expose the name "hvm_directio" at all when you can't run an HVM guest in the first place. Also iommu isn't an HVM only feature, PV guests can also make use of it if I understand correctly, hence the suggestion of "directio". Wei. > > Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
