From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: support iommu group zero Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:12:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20151209151215.4d88b9d4@xeon-e3> References: <1449683756-13381-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <2562631.e9AmeysRzG@xps13> <20151209135801.17965487@xeon-e3> <2072515.rqoGFgxSIN@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity , Alex Williamson To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0364C8D96 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:12:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so36988125pac.3 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:12:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2072515.rqoGFgxSIN@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:49:59 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-09 13:58, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:12:33 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 2015-12-09 09:55, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > The current implementation of VFIO will not with the new no-IOMMU mode > > > > in 4.4 kernel. The original code assumed that IOMMU group zero would > > > > never be used. Group numbers are assigned starting at zero, and up > > > > until now the group numbers came from the hardware which is likely > > > > to use group 0 for system devices that are not used with DPDK. > > > > > > > > The fix is to allow 0 as a valid group and rearrange code > > > > to split the return value from the group value. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > > > --- > > > > Why was this ignored? It was originally sent on 26 Oct 15 back > > > > when IOMMU discussion was lively. > > > > > > There was no review of this patch. > > > The patch has been marked as deferred recently when it was too late > > > to do such feature changes in DPDK code: > > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/8035/ > > > > This is why as a fallback the MAINTAINER has to review the patch > > or direct a sub-maintainer to do it. I think almost 2 months is > > plenty of time for review. > > 27 October was 3 days before the feature deadline. > And you have not pinged about it since then. > But that's true I have missed the importance of this patch. > Would it help to have it integrated today? > Are you sure it won't break something else? Could the original VFIO submitter from Intel review it.