From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com. [170.10.129.124]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a15si1029037ilv.2.2021.12.08.21.47.31 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Dec 2021 21:47:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id e23-20020a196917000000b0041bcbb80798so2210657lfc.3 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 21:47:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87v909bf2k.ffs@tglx> <20211130202800.GE4670@nvidia.com> <87o861banv.ffs@tglx> <20211201001748.GF4670@nvidia.com> <87mtlkaauo.ffs@tglx> <20211201130023.GH4670@nvidia.com> <87y2548byw.ffs@tglx> <20211201181406.GM4670@nvidia.com> <87mtlk84ae.ffs@tglx> <87r1av7u3d.ffs@tglx> <20211202135502.GP4670@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jason Wang Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:47:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch 21/32] NTB/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc() Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To: "Tian, Kevin" Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Thomas Gleixner , Logan Gunthorpe , LKML , Bjorn Helgaas , Marc Zygnier , Alex Williamson , "Dey, Megha" , "Raj, Ashok" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jon Mason , "Jiang, Dave" , Allen Hubbe , "linux-ntb@googlegroups.com" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , Heiko Carstens , Christian Borntraeger , "x86@kernel.org" , Joerg Roedel , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" List-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:41 PM Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe > > Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:55 PM > > > > Further, there is no reason why IMS should be reserved exclusively for > > VFIO! > > This is correct. Just as what you agreed with Thomas, the only difference > between IMS and MSI is on where the messages are stored. Physically > it is unreasonable for the HW to check whether an interrupt is used for > a specific software usage (e.g. virtualization) since it doesn't have such > knowledge. At most an entry is associated to PASID, but again the PASID > can be used anywhere. Note that vDPA had the plan to use IMS for the parent that can have a huge amount of instances. Thanks > > The wording in current IDXD spec is not clear on this part. We'll talk to > the spec owner to have it fixed. > > Thanks > Kevin >