From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledf...@redhat.com]
I suppose that the main issue would be handling existing user memory
mappings,
which cannot be just invalidated -- the user-space driver may not be aware
of the
device removal and may access this memory concurrently, and we don't
want it
From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledf...@redhat.com]
I suppose that the main issue would be handling existing user memory
mappings,
which cannot be just invalidated -- the user-space driver may not be aware
of the
device removal and may access this memory concurrently, and we don't
want it
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:17 +, Liran Liss wrote:
From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
these remaining resources may be device-specific.
The proposed framework first of all allows a provider to indicate
whether hot-removal is supported (i.e., the presence of the
On 5/19/2015 7:17 PM, Liran Liss wrote:
From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
these remaining resources may be device-specific.
The proposed framework first of all allows a provider to indicate
whether hot-removal is supported (i.e., the presence of the
'disassociate_ucontext'
