Re: [PATCH v7 05/23] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API

[Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 11:53:34 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> wrote:

> On 02/05/2019 07:58, Auger Eric wrote:
> > Hi Jean-Philippe,
> > 
> > On 5/1/19 12:38 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:  
> >> On 08/04/2019 13:18, Eric Auger wrote:  
> >>> +int iommu_cache_invalidate(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
> >>> device *dev,
> >>> +			   struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info
> >>> *inv_info) +{
> >>> +	int ret = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (unlikely(!domain->ops->cache_invalidate))
> >>> +		return -ENODEV;
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = domain->ops->cache_invalidate(domain, dev,
> >>> inv_info); +
> >>> +	return ret;  
> >>
> >> Nit: you don't really need ret
> >>
> >> The UAPI looks good to me, so
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker
> >> <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>  
> > Just to make sure, do you accept changes proposed by Jacob in
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/29/659 ie.
> > - the addition of NR_IOMMU_INVAL_GRANU in enum
> > iommu_inv_granularity and
> > - the addition of NR_IOMMU_CACHE_TYPE  
> 
> Ah sorry, I forgot about that, I'll review the next version. Yes they
> can be useful (maybe call them IOMMU_INV_GRANU_NR and
> IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_NR?). I guess it's legal to export in UAPI values
> that will change over time, as VFIO also does it in its enums.
> 
I am fine with the names. Maybe you can put this patch in your sva/api
branch once you reviewed it? Having a common branch for common code
makes life so much easier.