On 8/23/11 4:04 AM, "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 08:52:18PM -0400, aafabbri wrote: >> You have to enforce group/iommu domain assignment whether you have the >> existing uiommu API, or if you change it to your proposed >> ioctl(inherit_iommu) API. >> >> The only change needed to VFIO here should be to make uiommu fd assignment >> happen on the groups instead of on device fds. That operation fails or >> succeeds according to the group semantics (all-or-none assignment/same >> uiommu). > > That is makes uiommu basically the same as the meta-groups, right? Yes, functionality seems the same, thus my suggestion to keep uiommu explicit. Is there some need for group-groups besides defining sets of groups which share IOMMU resources? I do all this stuff (bringing up sets of devices which may share IOMMU domain) dynamically from C applications. I don't really want some static (boot-time or sysfs fiddling) supergroup config unless there is a good reason KVM/power needs it. As you say in your next email, doing it all from ioctls is very easy, programmatically. -Aaron Fabbri -- 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
