[00/15] swiotlb cleanup
fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp
Mon Jul 13 14:20:26 EST 2009
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:02:00 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell at citrix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 14:35 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > I don't think that we need to take account of dom0 support; we don't
> > have a clear idea about an acceptable dom0 design (it needs to use
> > swiotlb code? I don't know yet), we don't even know we will have dom0
> > support in mainline. That's why I didn't CC this patchset to Xen
> > camp.
> The core domain 0 patches which were the subject of the discussions a
> few week back are completely orthogonal to the swiotlb side of things
? If we don't merge dom0 patch, we don't need dom0 changes to
swiotlb. We don't know we would have dom0 support in mainline. Or I
> and whatever form they eventually take I do not think it will have any
> impact on the shape of the solution which we arrive at for swiotlb. I
> don't think that assuming that domain 0 can never be done in a way which
> everyone finds acceptable and therefore discounting all consideration of
> it is a useful way to make progress with these issues.
> The DMA use case is much more tightly tied to the paravirtualized MMU
> (which is already in the kernel for domU purposes) than it is to "the
> domain 0" patches anyway. Although domain 0 is probably the main use
> case, at least today, swiotlb support is also used in a Xen domU as part
> of the support for direct assignment of PCI devices to paravirtualised
> guests (pci passthrough).
> The pci frontend driver depends on some bits of the domain 0 physical
> interrupt patches as well as swiotlb which is why I/we haven't tried to
> upstream that particular series yet.
As far as I know, you have not posted anything about changes to
swiotlb for domU. I can't discuss it. If you want, please send
More information about the Linuxppc-dev