From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58881) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b8SlU-00065K-26 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:34:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b8SlP-0004Vj-J6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:34:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37052) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b8SlP-0004Vd-DK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:34:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:34:17 -0600 From: Alex Williamson Message-ID: <20160602073417.43735ed3@ul30vt.home> In-Reply-To: References: <1463847590-22782-1-git-send-email-bd.aviv@gmail.com> <1463847590-22782-4-git-send-email-bd.aviv@gmail.com> <20160523115342.636a5164@ul30vt.home> <20160526145844.552b21fb@t450s.home> <20160528100220.2d48ff2d@ul30vt.home> <20160528113936.48e67fac@ul30vt.home> <20160528134800.1af926d1@ul30vt.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] IOMMU: Integrate between VFIO and vIOMMU to support device assignment List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Aviv B.D." Cc: Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Xu , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:09:27 +0000 "Aviv B.D." wrote: > Hi, > > In case of hot plug vfio device there should not be any active mapping > to this device prior the device addition. Counter example - a device is hot added to a guest booted with iommu=pt. > Also before it added to a guest > the guest should not attach the device to any domain as the device is not > present. The static identity map domain (ie. passthrough domain) can precede the device existing. > With CM enabled the guest must invalidate the domain or individual mappings > that belong to this new device before any use of those maps. > > I'm still not sure that this functionality is necessary in x86 and > currently there > is a scenario (for x86) that use this functionality. Clearly I disagree, it is necessary. Thanks, Alex