From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] mempool: honor iova mode in virt2phy Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:09:43 +0200 Message-ID: <15653957.xZGtGGaVPI@xps> References: <20170608110513.22548-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com> <2047844.48kPz2y3QI@xps> <37dadcda-0407-252d-d200-c33bacd0dae6@caviumnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Olivier Matz , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, shreyansh.jain@nxp.com, gaetan.rivet@6wind.com, sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com To: santosh Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1FA37AF for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:09:45 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <37dadcda-0407-252d-d200-c33bacd0dae6@caviumnetworks.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 10/07/2017 15:56, santosh: > On Monday 10 July 2017 07:21 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 10/07/2017 15:30, santosh: > >> Hi Olivier, > >> > >> On Monday 10 July 2017 05:57 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: > >>> I didn't check the patchset in detail, but in my understanding, > >>> what we call physaddr in dpdk is actually a bus address. Shouldn't > >>> we start to rename some of these fields and functions to avoid > >>> confusion? > >> Agree. > >> While working on iova mode thing and reading these vir2phy api - > >> confused me more. Actually it should be iova2va, va2iova or pa2iova,iova2pa.. > >> where iova address is nothing but bus address Or we should refer to linux > >> semantics. > >> > >> We thought of addressing semantics after this series, Not a priority in IMO. > > I think it is a priority to start with semantics. > > The work is too hard with wrong semantic otherwise. > > Sorry, I don;t agree with you. Semantic shouldn't lower the iova priority. > iova framework is blocking SoC's. w/o iova framework : One has to live with > hackish solution for their SoC. > > Semantic change in any-case could be pipelined. It shouldn't be like > Semantics change gets priority and therefore it blocks other SoCs. I am not saying it is blocking. I just say that you have not started your work by the beginning, and now it make reviews difficult (from what I understand). You must make all the efforts to make your patches easier to understand and accept.