Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755306AbZGMKGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:06:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755266AbZGMKGC (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:06:02 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:18080 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755259AbZGMKGB (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:06:01 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,389,1243828800"; d="scan'208";a="58188706" Subject: Re: [00/15] swiotlb cleanup From: Ian Campbell To: FUJITA Tomonori CC: , , , , , , , , , In-Reply-To: <20090713185247W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <1247234520.4002.418.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20090713131859N.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1247478029.11668.10.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20090713185247W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:05:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1247479557.11668.30.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2182 Lines: 51 On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:53 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:40:29 +0100 > Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 05:20 +0100, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:02:00 +0100 > > > Ian Campbell 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 > > > overlooked something? > > [...] > > > 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 > > > patches. > > > > There are no separate domU swiotlb patches -- the exact the same patches > > as we have already been discussing are useful and necessary for both > > domU and dom0. > > Hmm, you guys introduced the swiotlb hooks by saying that it's for > only dom0. That was just sloppy wording on our part. domain 0 is the major usecase today so there is a tendency to think in those terms but the changes are actually relevant to any domain with access to a physical device that can do DMA, this includes domU via PCI passthrough. > I don't see any comments like 'this is useful to dom0 too'. I'm still ^U? > not sure what exactly part is useful to domU. All of it... Ian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/