From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] mempool: honor iova mode in virt2phy Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:26:31 +0530 Message-ID: <37dadcda-0407-252d-d200-c33bacd0dae6@caviumnetworks.com> References: <20170608110513.22548-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com> <20170710142706.4bee2ef1@platinum> <1f4d2538-a8bb-d729-8924-1a9a4e00a853@caviumnetworks.com> <2047844.48kPz2y3QI@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822D958CE for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:56:57 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2047844.48kPz2y3QI@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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.