> From: Peter Xu [mailto:pet...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 1:38 PM > To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com> > Cc: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@linux.intel.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; > m...@redhat.com; > da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au; pbonz...@redhat.com; alex.william...@redhat.com; > eric.auger....@gmail.com; Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>; > jasow...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] Introduce new iommu notifier framework for > virt-SVA > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 07:45:39AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > [...] > > > > Do you have online branch so that I can check out? > > > > yes, I should have pasted it. Here it is: > > https://github.com/luxis1999/sva_notifier.git > > Thanks. > > > > > > The patches are a bit scattered and it's really hard for me to > > > reference things within it... So a complete tree to read would be > > > nice. > > > > > > I roughly went over most of the patches, and the framework you > > > introduced is still not that clear to me. For now I feel like it > > > can be simplified somehow, but I'll hold and speak after I read the > > > whole tree again. > > > > > > Also, it'll be good too if you can always provide some status update > > > of the kernel-counterpart it. > > > > Good suggestion. For this patchset, it only affects Qemu. Yeah, but > > for the whole virt-SVA enabling, there is kernel-counterparts. I would > > do it in the virt-SVA patchset series. > > If you still want to post separately - I'm thinking whether it'll be good you > put the > vfio changes into the 2nd virt-sva series, since that looks more like in that > category. > Or say, we can introduce SVAOps/PASIDOps, we implement more vIOMMU > invalidation request handling, we call it in IOMMU code, but we don't > implement any > of the device (vfio) that provide that ops. > > Or maybe we can just post the whole stuff altogether, since after all these > two series > are still closely related IMHO (e.g., the SVAOps definition should be closely > related to > how the first vfio user would like to use it). > > Only my two cents, and I don't know how other people think. It's up to you > after > all. :)
Your suggestion is appreciated. My initial plan is: if the SVAOps/PASIDOps and SVAContext proposal is accepted by reviewers. Then I can further merge the two series. So far, still needs to work with David on the SVAContext definition. I'll balance the suggestion from you when sending next version. Thanks, Yi Liu
