lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling
From

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"

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-29 08:17    [W:0.075 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site