From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39679) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asSsW-0003Q1-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:27:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1asSsS-00053s-Cp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:27:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:27:15 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20160419130732-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1460980717.12793.43.camel@infradead.org> <20160418160731-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1460988232.22654.7.camel@infradead.org> <20160418170534-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1460992923.3765.8.camel@infradead.org> <20160418182320-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1460994701.3765.23.camel@infradead.org> <20160418190203-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1461004173.3765.73.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] fixup! virtio: convert to use DMA api List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: David Woodhouse , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Paolo Bonzini , peterx@redhat.com, Cornelia Huck , Stefan Hajnoczi , Kevin Wolf , Amit Shah , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Jason Wang , Alex Williamson , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Borntraeger , Wei Liu , Linux Virtualization , kvm list On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:24:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:29 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > For x86, you *can* enable virtio-behind-IOMMU if your DMAR tables tell > > the truth, and even legacy kernels ought to cope with that. > > FSVO 'ought to' where I suspect some of them will actually crash with a > > NULL pointer dereference if there's no "catch-all" DMAR unit in the > > tables, which puts it back into the same camp as ARM and Power. > > I think x86 may get a bit of a free pass here. AFAIK the QEMU IOMMU > implementation on x86 has always been "experimental", so it just might > be okay to change it in a way that causes some older kernels to OOPS. > > --Andy Since it's experimental, it might be OK to change *guest kernels* such that they oops on old QEMU. But guest kernels were not experimental - so we need a QEMU mode that makes them work fine. The more functionality is available in this QEMU mode, the betterm because it's going to be the default for a while. For the same reason, it is preferable to also have new kernels not crash in this mode. -- MST