search for: iommu_s_rang

...comments, hope this is a good place to send them: 1. In section 2.6.2, one reads If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is offered and the range described by fields virt_start and virt_end doesn?t fit in the range described by input_range, the device MAY set status to VIRTIO_- IOMMU_S_RANGE and ignore the request. Shouldn't int say "If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is negotiated" instead? 2. There's a typo at the end of section 2.6.5: The VIRTIO_IOMMU_MAP_F_MMIO flag is a memory type rather than a protection lag. s/lag/flag/ 3. In section 3.1.2...

...comments, hope this is a good place to send them: 1. In section 2.6.2, one reads If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is offered and the range described by fields virt_start and virt_end doesn?t fit in the range described by input_range, the device MAY set status to VIRTIO_- IOMMU_S_RANGE and ignore the request. Shouldn't int say "If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is negotiated" instead? 2. There's a typo at the end of section 2.6.5: The VIRTIO_IOMMU_MAP_F_MMIO flag is a memory type rather than a protection lag. s/lag/flag/ 3. In section 3.1.2...

...201901/msg00016.html > 1. In section 2.6.2, one reads > > If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is offered and the range > described by fields virt_start and virt_end doesn?t fit in the range > described by input_range, the device MAY set status to VIRTIO_- > IOMMU_S_RANGE and ignore the request. > > Shouldn't int say "If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_INPUT_RANGE feature is > negotiated" instead? Yes, that seems clearer and more consistent with other devices, I'll change it. In this case "offered" is equivalent to "negotiated",...