linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:15:28 +0800
From:   Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Baolu Lu <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>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        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, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling


在 2022/6/28 22:20, Jean-Philippe Brucker 写道:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:53:39PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>>>> Once the iopf_handle_single() is removed, the name of
>>>>> iopf_handle_group() looks a little weired
>>>>>
>>>>> and confused, does this group mean the iommu group (domain) ?
>>>>> while I take some minutes to
>>>> No. This is not the iommu group. It's page request group defined by the
>>>> PCI SIG spec. Multiple page requests could be put in a group with a
>>>> same group id. All page requests in a group could be responded to device
>>>> in one shot.
>>> Thanks your explaination, understand the concept of PCIe PRG.  I meant
>>>
>>> do we still have the necessity to mention the "group" here in the name
>>>
>>> iopf_handle_group(),  which one is better ? iopf_handle_prg() or
>>>
>>> iopf_handler(),  perhaps none of them ? :)
>> Oh! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>>
>> I have no strong feeling to change this naming. :-) All the names
>> express what the helper does. Jean is the author of this framework. If
>> he has the same idea as you, I don't mind renaming it in this patch.
> I'm not attached to the name, and I see how it could be confusing. Given
> that io-pgfault is not only for PCIe, 'prg' is not the best here either.
> iopf_handle_faults(), or just iopf_handler(), seem more suitable.

Both iopf_handle_faults() and iopf_handler() looks straight, iopf_handler()

saves one word 'faults', iopf already has the meaning 'io page fault' , so

iopf_handler() is clear enough I think.


Thanks,

Ethan

>
> Thanks,
> Jean

-- 
"firm, enduring, strong, and long-lived"