[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoH87WKnqtGgVCHt@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 00:27:41 -0700
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>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu: Add blocking_domain_ops field in iommu_ops
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:57:56AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Each IOMMU driver must provide a blocking domain ops. If the hardware
> supports detaching domain from device, setting blocking domain equals
> detaching the existing domain from the deivce. Otherwise, an UNMANAGED
> domain without any mapping will be used instead.
blocking in this case means not allowing any access? The naming
sounds a bit odd to me as blocking in the kernel has a specific
meaning. Maybe something like noaccess ops might be a better name?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists