On 20.05.2024 13:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:42:40PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.05.2024 15:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:16:11AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
When the flag is set, permit Dom0 to control the device (no worse than
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:42:40PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.05.2024 15:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:16:11AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> When the flag is set, permit Dom0 to control the device (no worse than
> >> what we had before and in line with other
On 06.05.2024 15:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:16:11AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> When the flag is set, permit Dom0 to control the device (no worse than
>> what we had before and in line with other "best effort" behavior we use
>> when it comes to Dom0),
>
> I think we
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:16:11AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When the flag is set, permit Dom0 to control the device (no worse than
> what we had before and in line with other "best effort" behavior we use
> when it comes to Dom0),
I think we should somehow be able to signal dom0 that this
When the flag is set, permit Dom0 to control the device (no worse than
what we had before and in line with other "best effort" behavior we use
when it comes to Dom0), but suppress passing through to DomU-s unless
ATS can actually be enabled for such devices (and was explicitly enabled
on the
