Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-26 Thread Keshavamurthy, Anil S
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:25:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:06 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > None of these actually _need_ to be macros and it would be better to > implement them in C. That way things are more self-documenting,

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-26 Thread Keshavamurthy, Anil S
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:32:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > > > > +static inline void *alloc_pgtable_page(void) > > > +{ > > > + return (void *

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > > +static inline void *alloc_pgtable_page(void) > > +{ > > + return (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); > > +} > > Need to pass gfp_t parameter. Repea

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:06 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actual intel IOMMU driver. Hardware spec can be found at: > http://www.intel.com/technology/virtualization > > This driver sets X86_64 'dma_ops', so hook into standard DMA APIs. In this > way, > PCI dr

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:06 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +/* > + * Decoding Capability Register > + */ > +#define cap_read_drain(c)(((c) >> 55) & 1) > +#define cap_write_drain(c) (((c) >> 54) & 1) > +#define cap_max_amask_val(c) (((c) >> 48) & 0x3f) > +#define

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > Memory allocated during driver init is very less and not much benefit > with the suggested changes I think. Please correct me If I am wrong. If its just a small amount of memory then the benefit will not be large. You are likely right. > The b

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-19 Thread Keshavamurthy, Anil S
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:32:23PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > > > +static inline void *alloc_pgtable_page(void) > > +{ > > + return (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); > > +} > > Need to pass gfp_t parameter. Repeates a couple of times

Re: [Intel IOMMU 05/10] Intel IOMMU driver

2007-06-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote: > +static inline void *alloc_pgtable_page(void) > +{ > + return (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); > +} Need to pass gfp_t parameter. Repeates a couple of times. > + addr &= (((u64)1) << addr_width) - 1; > + parent = domain->pgd; >