[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171012074349.GH30803@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:43:49 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>
Cc: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Lan, Tianyu" <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] iommu: introduce iommu invalidate API function
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:48:00PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> I wonder if SVM originated in OpenCL first, rather than intel? That's why
> I'm using it, but it is ambiguous. I'm not sure IOVM is precise enough
> though, since the name could as well be used without shared tables, for
> classical map/unmap and IOVAs. Kevin Tian suggested SVA "Shared Virtual
> Addressing" last time, which is a little more clear than SVM and isn't
> used elsewhere in the kernel either.
SVA sounds even better. Feel free to use that for all the PRI/PASID
related code.
Regards,
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists