On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 05:05:56PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:54:52 +0100
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
> > > > This is the very reason for which commit 7ef7e6e3b ("vhost: correctly
> > > > turn on VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM") for, which fences _F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> > > > form the vh
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:54:52 +0100
Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > This is the very reason for which commit 7ef7e6e3b ("vhost: correctly
> > > turn on VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM") for, which fences _F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> > > form the vhost device that does not need it, because on the vhost
> > > interface it
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:11:42 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 05:51:31PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > The commit 04ceb61a40 ("virtio: Fail if iommu_platform is requested, but
> > unsupported") claims to fail the device hotplug when iommu_platform
> > is requested, but
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 05:51:31PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> The commit 04ceb61a40 ("virtio: Fail if iommu_platform is requested, but
> unsupported") claims to fail the device hotplug when iommu_platform
> is requested, but not supported by the (vhost) device. On the first
> glance the condition
The commit 04ceb61a40 ("virtio: Fail if iommu_platform is requested, but
unsupported") claims to fail the device hotplug when iommu_platform
is requested, but not supported by the (vhost) device. On the first
glance the condition for detecting that situation looks perfect, but
because a certain pec
