On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:54:27PM -0400, aafabbri wrote: > On 8/23/11 4:04 AM, "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I don't see a reason to make this meta-grouping static. It would harm flexibility on x86. I think it makes things easier on power but there are options on that platform to get the dynamic solution too. Joerg -- AMD Operating System Research Center Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632 -- 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
