From: Jason Gunthorpe via iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] iommu: Split struct iommu_ops
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:43:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220209134307.GB4160@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YgNjNu4kVbkruvZN@infradead.org>
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:46:14PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:25:59AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Move the domain specific operations out of struct iommu_ops into a new
> > structure that only has domain specific operations. This solves the
> > problem of needing to know if the method vector for a given operation
> > needs to be retrieved from the device or the domain. Logically the domain
> > ops are the ones that make sense for external subsystems and endpoint
> > drivers to use, while device ops, with the sole exception of domain_alloc,
> > are IOMMU API internals.
>
> I can't say I like the default_domain_ops concept all that much, but
> the split itself looks like a good idea and done nicely.
I agree, but don't think it is worth aruging about. The split is nice
so:
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] iommu: Split struct iommu_ops
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:43:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220209134307.GB4160@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YgNjNu4kVbkruvZN@infradead.org>
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:46:14PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:25:59AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Move the domain specific operations out of struct iommu_ops into a new
> > structure that only has domain specific operations. This solves the
> > problem of needing to know if the method vector for a given operation
> > needs to be retrieved from the device or the domain. Logically the domain
> > ops are the ones that make sense for external subsystems and endpoint
> > drivers to use, while device ops, with the sole exception of domain_alloc,
> > are IOMMU API internals.
>
> I can't say I like the default_domain_ops concept all that much, but
> the split itself looks like a good idea and done nicely.
I agree, but don't think it is worth aruging about. The split is nice
so:
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-09 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-08 1:25 [PATCH v2 00/10] iommu cleanup and refactoring Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] iommu/vt-d: Remove guest pasid related callbacks Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] iommu: Remove guest pasid related interfaces and definitions Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-10 0:44 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-10 0:44 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] iommu/vt-d: Remove aux-domain related callbacks Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 13:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] iommu: Remove aux-domain related interfaces and iommu_ops Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 13:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] iommu: Remove apply_resv_region Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 6:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 6:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 13:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] drm/nouveau/device: Get right pgsize_bitmap of iommu_domain Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 13:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-10 0:48 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-10 0:48 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] iommu: Use right way to retrieve iommu_ops Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 6:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 6:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 13:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] iommu: Remove unused argument in is_attach_deferred Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 6:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 6:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 13:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-09 13:52 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-09 13:52 ` Robin Murphy
2022-02-10 0:51 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-10 0:51 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-14 0:50 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-14 0:50 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] iommu: Use dev_iommu_ops() helper Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 6:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 6:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 13:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu
2022-02-09 13:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-10 1:10 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-10 1:10 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] iommu: Split struct iommu_ops Lu Baolu
2022-02-08 1:25 ` Lu Baolu
2022-02-09 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-09 13:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu [this message]
2022-02-09 13:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-02-14 2:00 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] iommu cleanup and refactoring Lu Baolu
2022-02-14 2:00 ` Lu Baolu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220209134307.GB4160@nvidia.com \
--to=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.