Re: [PATCH] iommu/intel: SNP bit is not dependent on iommu domain coherency

2014-01-06 Thread Alex Williamson
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 00:54 +, Zhang, Yang Z wrote: > Alex Williamson wrote on 2013-12-24: > > David, > > > > Any comments on this patch? Thanks, > > > > Hi Alex, > > There do have some IOMMUs will treat SNP bit in the PTE as reserved > (0) and will cause a reserved field violation fault i

RE: [PATCH] iommu/intel: SNP bit is not dependent on iommu domain coherency

2014-01-06 Thread Zhang, Yang Z
Alex Williamson wrote on 2013-12-24: > David, > > Any comments on this patch? Thanks, > Hi Alex, There do have some IOMMUs will treat SNP bit in the PTE as reserved (0) and will cause a reserved field violation fault if it is set but hardware not support snoop-control(bit 7 in ECAP_REG is 0)

Re: [PATCH] iommu/intel: SNP bit is not dependent on iommu domain coherency

2013-12-23 Thread Alex Williamson
David, Any comments on this patch? Thanks, Alex On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 10:21 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > The setting of the SNP bit in the intel-iommu page tables should not > be dependent on the current capability of the iommu domain. The > current VT-d spec (2.2) indicates the SNP bit is

[PATCH] iommu/intel: SNP bit is not dependent on iommu domain coherency

2013-10-29 Thread Alex Williamson
The setting of the SNP bit in the intel-iommu page tables should not be dependent on the current capability of the iommu domain. The current VT-d spec (2.2) indicates the SNP bit is "treated as reserved[0] by hardware implementations not supporting Snoop Control". Furthermore, section 3.7.3 indica