Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:41:11 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: replace BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY with BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE |
| |
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:18:44 +1100 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote: > > > FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > I'm not familiar with what Xen does but why can't Xen just override > > > BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE? > > > > > > Why does Xen need to hook BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE to the iommu_bio_merge > > > parameter (as this patch does)? BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE and the > > > iommu_bio_merge parameter are not related at all. > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It was convenient to reuse that mechanism, but I can > > easily re-add something else (which would be more or less identical). > > I still don't see how Xen needs something like the virtual merge > (sounds that overriding BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE perfectly works for Xen) > or why Xen needs a new boot parameter for it. The virtual merge just > defines how IOMMUs should work.
Pretty much baffles me as well, xen should just need to do
#define BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(vec1, vec2) 0
and that should be it.
-- Jens Axboe
| |