[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBhkf8ugXFPi8dej@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:49:51 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
robin.murphy@....com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
eric.auger@...hat.com, nicolinc@...dia.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com,
yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com, peterx@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, lulu@...hat.com,
suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iommufd: Add nesting related data structures for
Intel VT-d
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:22:03AM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> +struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate_intel_vtd {
> + __u8 granularity;
> + __u8 padding[7];
> + __u32 flags;
> + __u32 __reserved;
> + __u64 addr;
> + __u64 granule_size;
> + __u64 nb_granules;
> +};
Is there a reason this has such a weird layout? Put the granularity in
the __reserved slot?
Consider the discussion on ARM if you prefer to use the native HW
command structure instead?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists