On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:35:19PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 12:14 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:28 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:20:08PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 09:58 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > On x86, the USB controllers don't typically live behind a PCIe-to-PCI > > > > bridge, so don't suffer the source identifier problem, but they do often > > > > share an interrupt. But even then, we can count on most modern devices > > > > supporting PCI2.3, and thus the DisINTx feature, which allows us to > > > > share interrupts. In any case, yes, it's more rare but we need to know > > > > how to handle devices behind PCI bridges. However I disagree that we > > > > need to assign all the devices behind such a bridge to the guest. > > > > There's a difference between removing the device from the host and > > > > exposing the device to the guest. > > > > > > I think you're arguing only over details of what words to use for > > > what, rather than anything of substance here. The point is that an > > > entire partitionable group must be assigned to "host" (in which case > > > kernel drivers may bind to it) or to a particular guest partition (or > > > at least to a single UID on the host). Which of the assigned devices > > > the partition actually uses is another matter of course, as is at > > > exactly which level they become "de-exposed" if you don't want to use > > > all of then. > > > > Well first we need to define what a partitionable group is, whether it's > > based on hardware requirements or user policy. And while I agree that > > we need unique ownership of a partition, I disagree that qemu is > > necessarily the owner of the entire partition vs individual devices. > > Sorry, I didn't intend to have such circular logic. "... I disagree > that qemu is necessarily the owner of the entire partition vs granted > access to devices within the partition". Thanks, 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. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
