Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:38:11 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/9] add frontend implementation for the IOMMU API | From | FUJITA Tomonori <> |
| |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:31:29 +0100 Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:40:41PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:40:48 +0100 > > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/base/iommu.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 drivers/base/iommu.c > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/iommu.c b/drivers/base/iommu.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..7250b9c > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/base/iommu.c > > > > Hmm, why is this at drivers/base/? Anyone except for kvm could use > > this? If so, under virt/ is more appropriate? > > I don't see a reason why this should be KVM specific. KVM is the only > user for now. But it can be used for i.e. UIO too. Or in drivers to > speed up devices which have bad performance when they do scather gather > IO.
If there are some except for kvm that could use this, it should be fine, I guess.
Can you add such information (e.g. who could use this) to the patch description? It should be in the git log if the patch is merged.
> > The majority of the names (include/linux/iommu.h, iommu.c, iommu_ops, > > etc) looks too generic? We already have lots of similar things > > (e.g. arch/{x86,ia64}/asm/iommu.h, several archs' iommu.c, etc). Such > > names are expected to be used by all the IOMMUs. > > The API is already useful for more than KVM. I also plan to extend it to > support more types of IOMMUs than VT-d and AMD IOMMU in the future. But > these changes are more intrusive than this patchset and need more > discussion. I prefer to do small steps into this direction.
Can you be more specific? What IOMMU could use this? For example, how GART can use this? I think that people expect the name 'struct iommu_ops' to be an abstract for all the IOMMUs (or the majority at least). If this works like that, the name is a good choice, I think.
| |