On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 17:32 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I agree *except* that implementing it will be a real PITA and (I > think) can't be done without changing code in arch/. My patches plus > an ifdef powerpc will be functionally equivalent, just uglier. So for powerpc, it's a 2 liner inside virtio-pci, but yes, it might be more of a problem for s390, I'm not too sure what they do in that area. > Bigger quirk: on a standard s390 virtio guest configuration, > dma_map_single etc will fail to link. Yuck > I tried this in v1 of these > patches. So we can poke at the archdata all day, but we can't build a > kernel like that :( I would like the s390 people to chime in here, it still looks like the best way to go if they can fix things on their side :-) > So until the dma_ops pointer move into struct device and > CONFIG_HAS_DMA becomes mandatory (or mandatory enough that virtio can > depend on it), I don't think we can do it this way. I see, it's a bummer because it would be a lot cleaner. > I'll send a v5 that is the same as v4 except with physical addressing > hardcoded in for powerpc. Thanks. That will do for now, but ideally we want to make it a function of some flag from the implementation, so let's see what Rusty has to say. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
