On 2022-02-24 05:29, Lu Baolu wrote:
On 2/24/22 1:16 PM, Lu Baolu wrote:
Hi Robin and Jason,
On 2/24/22 2:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't
see a
realistic use-case
On 2/24/22 1:16 PM, Lu Baolu wrote:
Hi Robin and Jason,
On 2/24/22 2:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't see a
realistic use-case for any driver to claim the same group
On 2/24/22 2:00 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2022-02-18 00:55, Lu Baolu wrote:
[...]
+/**
+ * iommu_group_claim_dma_owner() - Set DMA ownership of a group
+ * @group: The group.
+ * @owner: Caller specified pointer. Used for exclusive ownership.
+ *
+ * This is to support backward compatibility
Hi Robin and Jason,
On 2/24/22 2:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't see a
realistic use-case for any driver to claim the same group more than once,
and allowing it in
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:20:36PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 18:02, Jason Gunthorpe via iommu wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > ...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't see a
> > > realistic use-case for
On 2022-02-23 18:02, Jason Gunthorpe via iommu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't see a
realistic use-case for any driver to claim the same group more than once,
and allowing it in the API just
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:00:06PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> ...and equivalently just set owner_cnt directly to 0 here. I don't see a
> realistic use-case for any driver to claim the same group more than once,
> and allowing it in the API just feels like opening up various potential
> corners
On 2022-02-18 00:55, Lu Baolu wrote:
[...]
+/**
+ * iommu_group_claim_dma_owner() - Set DMA ownership of a group
+ * @group: The group.
+ * @owner: Caller specified pointer. Used for exclusive ownership.
+ *
+ * This is to support backward compatibility for vfio which manages
+ * the dma
On 2/19/22 3:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The overall API and patch looks fine, but:
+ * iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed() - Query group dma ownership status
+ * @group: The group.
+ *
+ * This provides status query on a given group. It is racey and only for
+ * non-binding status reporting.
The overall API and patch looks fine, but:
> + * iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed() - Query group dma ownership status
> + * @group: The group.
> + *
> + * This provides status query on a given group. It is racey and only for
> + * non-binding status reporting.
s/racey/racy/
> + */
> +bool
Multiple devices may be placed in the same IOMMU group because they
cannot be isolated from each other. These devices must either be
entirely under kernel control or userspace control, never a mixture.
This adds dma ownership management in iommu core and exposes several
interfaces for the device
11 matches
Mail list logo
