[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94004987-3cab-9fde-a231-7c63ac88a866@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 14:17:37 +0800
From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <joro@...tes.org>, <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
<kevin.tian@...el.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>,
<zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>, <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] iommu: Add hwpt_type with user_data for
domain_alloc_user op
On 2023/9/22 17:47, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2023-09-21 17:44, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 08:12:03PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>> On 2023/9/21 15:51, Yi Liu wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h b/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h
>>>> index 4a7c5c8fdbb4..3c8660fe9bb1 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h
>>>> @@ -357,6 +357,14 @@ enum iommufd_hwpt_alloc_flags {
>>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT = 1 << 0,
>>>> };
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * enum iommu_hwpt_type - IOMMU HWPT Type
>>>> + * @IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_DEFAULT: default
>>>
>>> How about s/default/vendor agnostic/ ?
>>
>> Please don't use the word vendor :)
>>
>> IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_GENERIC perhaps if we don't like default
>
> Ah yes, a default domain type, not to be confused with any default domain
> type, including the default default domain type. Just in case anyone had
> forgotten how gleefully fun this is :D
>
> I particularly like the bit where we end up with this construct later:
>
> switch (hwpt_type) {
> case IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_DEFAULT:
> /* allocate a domain */
> default:
> /* allocate a different domain */
> }
>
> But of course neither case allocates a *default* domain, because it's quite
> obviously the wrong place to be doing that.
>
> I could go on enjoying myself, but basically yeah, "default" can't be a
> type in itself (at best it would be a meta-type which could be requested,
> such that it resolves to some real type to actually allocate), so a good
> name should reflect what the type functionally *means* to the user. IIUC
> the important distinction is that it's an abstract kernel-owned pagetable
> for the user to indirectly control via the API, rather than one it owns and
> writes directly (and thus has to be in a specific agreed format).
yes. It is just what the existing domain_alloc_user op does. Here we add
a hwpt_type as the type can be given by user, so we need to define a
specific type for it.
Perhaps we can also name it as IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_UNMANAGED to be aligned with
the domain type naming. IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_GENERIC is also a good choice.
Please feel free let me know your preference.
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists