[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMCDfWLw6r80Wdu3@unreal>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:01:49 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)"
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:58:18AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Hi, all,
<...>
> (Remaining opens in v1)
<...>
> - Device-centric (Jason) vs. group-centric (David) uAPI. David is not fully
> convinced yet. Based on discussion v2 will continue to have ioasid uAPI
> being device-centric (but it's fine for vfio to be group-centric). A new
> section will be added to elaborate this part;
<...>
> (Adopted suggestions)
<...>
> - (Jason) Addition of device label allows per-device capability/format
> check before IOASIDs are created. This leads to another major uAPI
> change in v2 - specify format info when creating an IOASID (mapping
> protocol, nesting, coherent, etc.). User is expected to check per-device
> format and then set proper format for IOASID upon to-be-attached
> device;
Sorry for my naive question, I still didn't read all v1 thread and maybe
the answer is already written, but will ask anyway.
Doesn't this adopted suggestion to allow device-specific configuration
actually means that uAPI should be device-centric?
User already needs to be aware of device, configure it explicitly, maybe
gracefully clean it later, it looks like not so much left to be group-centric.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists