On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:28:03PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
From f2f722515135d95016f2d2ab55cc2aaf23d2fd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Weidong Han [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:28:07 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Support multiple device assignment to one guest
Current VT-d
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:28:03PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
From f2f722515135d95016f2d2ab55cc2aaf23d2fd80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
From: Weidong Han [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:28:07 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Support multiple device assignment to one
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 02:43:26PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
For pvdma, why each BDF will need its own domain for intra-guest
protection?
Because if more than one BDF shares an address space, BDFa will be
able to DMA to BDFb's buffers, and vice versa. The point of
intra-guest (not
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 02:34:19PM +0800, Han, Weidong wrote:
I don't understand why this approach reduces IOTLB utility. How to
say unrelated devices with unrelated buffers competing for the same
resource? Multiple devices shares one page table should improve
IOTLB utility, because some
