[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e786a91-6239-1fa5-cad9-f319794b6055@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 19:03:02 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, 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 2022/5/20 16:45, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:57:56AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> const struct iommu_domain_ops *default_domain_ops;
>> + const struct iommu_domain_ops *blocking_domain_ops;
>
> I don't understand why extra domain-ops are needed for this. I think it
> would be more straight-forward to implement allocation of
> IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED domains in each driver and let the details be
> handled in the set_dev() call-back. The IOMMU driver can make sure DMA
> is blocked for a device when it encounters a IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED
> domain.
>
> For IOMMUs that have no explicit way to block DMA could just use an
> unmanaged domain with an empty page-table.
Yes, this is what will go.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists