> 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().
[Liu, Yi L] Actually, I'm not against 'SVM' terms. Just want to make it be compatible with future usage in non-SVM scenario. > 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 [Liu, Yi L] Agree, 'external' is also unclear. > from the name when to use this function. So something like > iommu_iovm_invalidate() is better. > [Liu, Yi L] I didn't quite get 'iovm' mean. Can you explain a bit about the idea? Thanks, Yi L _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
