On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:12:55 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-06-24 15:28, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:18:36 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:11:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
> >>>
On 2022-06-24 15:28, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:18:36 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:11:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:28:31AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > That's essentially what I'm suggesting, the vfio_group is passed as an
> > > opaque pointer which type1 can use for a
> > > vfio_group_for_each_vfio_device() type call. Thanks,
> >
> > I don't want to add a whole
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:18:36 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:11:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:11:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group
> > > > >>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group
> > > >> *iommu_group)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + struct vfio_group *group =
> > > >>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:04:11PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group
> *iommu_group)
> +{
> + struct vfio_group *group = vfio_group_get_from_iommu(iommu_group);
> + struct vfio_device *device;
> +
> +
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group
> > >> *iommu_group)
> > >> +{
> > >> +struct vfio_group *group =
> > >> vfio_group_get_from_iommu(iommu_group);
> > >> +struct vfio_device
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:23:05 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-06-22 23:17, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:04:11 +0100
> > Robin Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> Since IOMMU groups are mandatory for drivers to support, it stands to
> >> reason that any device which has been
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> So yes, technically we could implement an iommu_group_capable() and an
> iommu_group_domain_alloc(), which would still just internally resolve the
> IOMMU ops and instance data from a member device to perform the driver-level
> call,
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:46:45 +
"Tian, Kevin" wrote:
> > From: Alex Williamson
> > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 6:17 AM
> >
> > >
> > > ret = -EIO;
> > > - domain->domain = iommu_domain_alloc(bus);
> > > + domain->domain = iommu_domain_alloc(iommu_api_dev->dev-
> > >bus);
> >
> > It
On 2022-06-22 23:17, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:04:11 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
Since IOMMU groups are mandatory for drivers to support, it stands to
reason that any device which has been successfully be added to a group
s/be //
Oops.
must be on a bus supported by
> From: Alex Williamson
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 6:17 AM
>
> >
> > ret = -EIO;
> > - domain->domain = iommu_domain_alloc(bus);
> > + domain->domain = iommu_domain_alloc(iommu_api_dev->dev-
> >bus);
>
> It makes sense to move away from a bus centric interface to iommu ops
> and I
Hi Robin,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on v5.19-rc3]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master next-20220622]
[cannot apply to awilliam-vfio/next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to
On 2022/6/22 20:04, Robin Murphy wrote:
Since IOMMU groups are mandatory for drivers to support, it stands to
reason that any device which has been successfully be added to a group
must be on a bus supported by that IOMMU driver, and therefore a domain
viable for any device in the group must be
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:04:11 +0100
Robin Murphy wrote:
> Since IOMMU groups are mandatory for drivers to support, it stands to
> reason that any device which has been successfully be added to a group
s/be //
> must be on a bus supported by that IOMMU driver, and therefore a domain
> viable for
Since IOMMU groups are mandatory for drivers to support, it stands to
reason that any device which has been successfully be added to a group
must be on a bus supported by that IOMMU driver, and therefore a domain
viable for any device in the group must be viable for all devices in
the group. This
17 matches
Mail list logo
