On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 29/05/2017 06:02, Peter Xu wrote:
> > The IOTLB that it returned didn't guarantee that page_mask is indeed a
> > so-called page mask. That won't affect current usage since now only
> > vhost is using it (vhost API allows arbi
On 29/05/2017 06:02, Peter Xu wrote:
> The IOTLB that it returned didn't guarantee that page_mask is indeed a
> so-called page mask. That won't affect current usage since now only
> vhost is using it (vhost API allows arbitary IOTLB range). However we
> have IOTLB scemantic and we should best fol
The IOTLB that it returned didn't guarantee that page_mask is indeed a
so-called page mask. That won't affect current usage since now only
vhost is using it (vhost API allows arbitary IOTLB range). However we
have IOTLB scemantic and we should best follow it. This patch fixes this
issue to make sur
