Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:51:26 +0200 | From | Joerg Roedel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] iommu: introduce iommu invalidate API function |
| |
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 07:54:32AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > I agree that iommu_invalidate() is too generic. Additionally, also > better to avoid making it svm specific.
I also don't like to name the functions after the Intel feature, but I failed to come up with a better alternative so far. The only one I can come up with for now would be 'iovm', so the function name would be iommu_iovm_invalidate().
On the other side, the ARM guys also already call the feature set 'SVM', despite it being ambiguous and Intel specific. I don't have a strong opinion on the naming.
> The reason we introduce this API is in vSVM case is that guest owns > the first level page table(vtd). If we use similar mechanism for > vIOVA, then we also need to passdown guest's vIOVA tlb flush. > > Since it is to expose an API for iommu tlb flushes requests from > userspace/guest which is out of iommu. How about naming it as > iommu_tlb_external_invalidate()?
If you only read the function name, 'external' could mean everything. It is not clear from the name when to use this function. So something like iommu_iovm_invalidate() is better.
Joerg
| |