From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:46:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] powerpc/eeh: Info to trace passed devices Message-Id: <5379FD19.2020100@suse.de> List-Id: References: <1400040722-29608-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1400040722-29608-3-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1400040722-29608-3-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Gavin Shan , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org Cc: aik@ozlabs.ru, alex.williamson@redhat.com, qiudayu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org On 14.05.14 06:11, Gavin Shan wrote: > The address of passed PCI devices (domain:bus:slot:func) might be > quite different from the perspective of host and guest. We have to > trace the address mapping so that we can emulate EEH RTAS requests > from guest. The patch introduces additional fields to eeh_pe and > eeh_dev for the purpose. > > Also, the patch adds function eeh_vfio_pe_get() and eeh_vfio_dev_get() > to search EEH PE or device according to the given guest address. Both > of them will be used by subsequent patches. > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan I don't see the point of VFIO knowing about guest addresses. They are not unique across a system and the whole idea that a VFIO device has to be owned by a guest is also pretty dubious. I suppose what you really care about here is just a token for a specific device? But why do you need one where we don't have tokens yet? Alex From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 377431A007E for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 22:46:24 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <5379FD19.2020100@suse.de> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:46:17 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Shan , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] powerpc/eeh: Info to trace passed devices References: <1400040722-29608-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1400040722-29608-3-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1400040722-29608-3-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: aik@ozlabs.ru, alex.williamson@redhat.com, qiudayu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 14.05.14 06:11, Gavin Shan wrote: > The address of passed PCI devices (domain:bus:slot:func) might be > quite different from the perspective of host and guest. We have to > trace the address mapping so that we can emulate EEH RTAS requests > from guest. The patch introduces additional fields to eeh_pe and > eeh_dev for the purpose. > > Also, the patch adds function eeh_vfio_pe_get() and eeh_vfio_dev_get() > to search EEH PE or device according to the given guest address. Both > of them will be used by subsequent patches. > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan I don't see the point of VFIO knowing about guest addresses. They are not unique across a system and the whole idea that a VFIO device has to be owned by a guest is also pretty dubious. I suppose what you really care about here is just a token for a specific device? But why do you need one where we don't have tokens yet? Alex