From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] iommu: introduce iommu invalidate API function Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:51:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20171011095126.GD30803@8bytes.org> References: <1507244624-39189-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1507244624-39189-4-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20171010133542.juag7cwbivlb56sl@8bytes.org> <20171010150953.4095a045@jacob-builder> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Liu, Yi L" Cc: Jacob Pan , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , LKML , David Woodhouse , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , Jean-Philippe Brucker , "Lan, Tianyu" , "Tian, Kevin" , "Raj, Ashok" , Alex Williamson , "Liu, Yi L" , "Liu@8bytes.org" List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 07:54:32AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > I agree that iommu_invalidate() is too generic. Additionally, also > better to avoid making it svm specific. I also don't like to name the functions after the Intel feature, but I failed to come up with a better alternative so far. The only one I can come up with for now would be 'iovm', so the function name would be iommu_iovm_invalidate(). On the other side, the ARM guys also already call the feature set 'SVM', despite it being ambiguous and Intel specific. I don't have a strong opinion on the naming. > The reason we introduce this API is in vSVM case is that guest owns > the first level page table(vtd). If we use similar mechanism for > vIOVA, then we also need to passdown guest's vIOVA tlb flush. > > Since it is to expose an API for iommu tlb flushes requests from > userspace/guest which is out of iommu. How about naming it as > iommu_tlb_external_invalidate()? If you only read the function name, 'external' could mean everything. It is not clear from the name when to use this function. So something like iommu_iovm_invalidate() is better. Joerg