>>> On 07.09.18 at 03:47, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: >> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durr...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:54 PM >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> > Sent: 06 September 2018 14:13 >> > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >> > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>; Julien Grall >> > <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; Stefano >> > Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; xen-devel <xen- >> > de...@lists.xenproject.org> >> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/14] iommu: introduce the concept >> of >> > BFN... >> > >> > >>> On 06.09.18 at 12:36, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> > >> Sent: 05 September 2018 10:39 >> > >> >> > >> >>> On 05.09.18 at 11:13, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> > Personally I think 'bus address' is commonly enough used term for >> > >> addresses >> > >> > used by devices for DMA. Indeed we have already 'dev_bus_addr' in >> > the >> > >> grant >> > >> > map and unmap hypercalls. So baddr and bfn seem like ok terms to >> me. >> > It's >> > >> > also not impossible to rename these later if they prove problematic. >> > >> >> > >> But that's the point - the names are problematic (to me): I >> permanently >> > >> have to remind myself that they do _not_ refer to the addresses as >> > >> seen when accessing memory, but the ones going _into_ the IOMMU. >> > > >> > > Ok. Could we agree on 'IOFN' then? I think 'iova' and 'io address' are >> also >> > > reasonably widely used terms to refer to address from a device's PoV. >> I'd >> > > really like to unblock these early patches. >> > >> > Hmm, earlier I had indicated I'd prefer DFN (as this make clear whose >> > view we are talking about). Kevin seemed to prefer DFN too, just with >> > a different association for D (which, as said, I consider unhelpful). So >> > is there a particular reason you're now suggesting IOFN nevertheless? >> >> It was the ambiguity and lack of agreement over the 'D' that made me think >> that the other alternative would be better. >> Kevin, would you be ok with 'IOFN'? >> > > My problem with DFN is when combining D with address then "device > address" is not very clear to me while interpreting D as DMA is also > not that clear from Jan's point.
What about making its description mention both possible interpretations? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
