On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:14:26AM +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > 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. I think several people are misreading what Ben means by "static". I would prefer to say 'persistent', in that the meta-groups lifetime is not tied to an fd, but they can be freely created, altered and removed during runtime. -- 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
