On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 12:25 +0100, Frederic Barrat wrote: > > Le 21/02/2018 à 07:43, Balbir Singh a écrit : > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Alastair D'Silva <alast...@au1.ibm > > .com> wrote: > > > From: Alastair D'Silva <alast...@d-silva.org> > > > > > > Some required information is not exposed to userspace currently > > > (eg. the > > > PASID), pass this information back, along with other information > > > which > > > is currently communicated via sysfs, which saves some parsing > > > effort in > > > userspace. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva <alast...@d-silva.org> > > > <snip> > > Should we document the fields? pp_ stands for per process, but is > > not > > very clear at first look. Why do we care to return only the size, > > what > > about lpc size? > > My bad, I forgot to mention it before. There's a somewhat high-level > description which needs updating in: > Documentation/accelerators/ocxl.rst > > It doesn't go down to the level of the structure members, but at > least > all ioctl commands should have a brief description. >
I'll update the docs. > lpc_size could be added. It's currently useless to the library, but > doesn't hurt. The one which was giving me troubles on a previous > version > of this patch was the lpc numa node ID, since that was experimental > code > and felt out of place considering what's been upstreamed in skiboot > and > linux so far. I'd rather add the LPC members when the rest of the LPC code goes in. At the moment, the LPC size represents the window size (as a power of 2), whereas we expect that it should represent the actual amount of LPC memory exposed. I would rather avoid changing semantics of members in released code, or burning another reserved member for the updated definition if we can avoid it. -- Alastair D'Silva Open Source Developer Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia mob: 0423 762 819
