> From: Baolu Lu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
>
> On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
> >>> struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this in
> >>> something else.
> >> Fair enough. How about below wrapper?
> >>
> >> +struct iommu_sva_domain {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Common iommu domain header,*must* be put at the top
> >> + * of the structure.
> >> + */
> >> + struct iommu_domain domain;
> >> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> >> + struct iommu_sva bond;
> >> +}
> >>
> >> The refcount is wrapped in bond.
> > I'm still not sure that bond is necessary
>
> "bond" is the sva handle that the device drivers get through calling
> iommu_sva_bind().
>
'bond' was required before because we didn't have a domain to wrap
the page table at that time.
Now we have a domain and it is 1:1 associated to bond. Probably
make sense now by just returning the domain as the sva handle
instead?
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
