[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ye5yHejpaAnJQYeR@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 01:32:13 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] iommu: Use right way to retrieve iommu_ops
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 03:11:01PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> The common iommu_ops is hooked to both device and domain. When a helper
> has both device and domain pointer, the way to get the iommu_ops looks
> messy in iommu core. This sorts out the way to get iommu_ops. The device
> related helpers go through device pointer, while the domain related ones
> go through domain pointer.
Ugg. This really sounds like we should have a different structures for
each set of ops?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists