[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a88a255-a528-b00a-912b-e71198d5f58f@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 22:11:46 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
James E J Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Peter H Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/15] pci: Add pci_iomap_shared{,_range}
On 8/29/2021 3:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:17:53AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Also I changing this single call really that bad? It's not that we changing
>> anything drastic here, just give the low level subsystem a better hint about
>> the intention. If you don't like the function name, could make it an
>> argument instead?
> My point however is that the API should say that the
> driver has been audited,
We have that status in the struct device. If you want to tie the ioremap
to that we could define a ioremap_device() with a device argument and
decide based on that.
Or we can add _audited to the name. ioremap_shared_audited?
> not that the mapping has been
> done in some special way. For example the mapping can be
> in some kind of wrapper, not directly in the driver.
> However you want the driver validated, not the wrapper.
>
> Here's an idea:
I don't think magic differences of API behavior based on some define are
a good idea. That's easy to miss.
That's a "COME FROM" in API design.
Also it wouldn't handle the case that a driver has both private and
shared ioremaps, e.g. for BIOS structures.
And we've been avoiding that drivers can self declare auditing, we've
been trying to have a separate centralized list so that it's easier to
enforce and avoids any cut'n'paste mistakes.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists