From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52326)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QqLDC-0006Ut-JQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 04:29:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QqLDB-0001mE-LT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 04:29:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20178)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QqLDB-0001lp-EH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 04:29:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3F9E33.5000706@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:28:35 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1311983933.8793.42.camel@pasglop>
	<1312050011.2265.185.camel@x201.home>
	<20110802082848.GD29719@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<1312308847.2653.467.camel@bling.home>
	<1312310121.2653.470.camel@bling.home>
	<20110803020422.GF29719@yookeroo.fritz.box>
In-Reply-To: <20110803020422.GF29719@yookeroo.fritz.box>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] kvm PCI assignment & VFIO ramblings
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, aafabbri <aafabbri@cisco.com>, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@au1.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <pmac@au1.ibm.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, chrisw <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, benve@cisco.com

On 08/03/2011 05:04 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> I still don't understand the distinction you're making.  We're saying
> the group is "owned" by a given user or guest in the sense that no-one
> else may use anything in the group (including host drivers).  At that
> point none, some or all of the devices in the group may actually be
> used by the guest.
>
> You seem to be making a distinction between "owned by" and "assigned
> to" and "used by" and I really don't see what it is.
>

Alex (and I) think that we should work with device/function granularity, 
as is common with other archs, and that the group thing is just a 
constraint on which functions may be assigned where, while you think 
that we should work at group granularity, with 1-function groups for 
archs which don't have constraints.

Is this an accurate way of putting it?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function