> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durr...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:13 PM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > > Sent: 07 September 2018 07:24 > > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Kevin Tian > > <kevin.t...@intel.com> > > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>; Julien Grall > > <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; xen- > > devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> > > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/14] iommu: introduce the concept > of > > BFN... > > > > >>> 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? > > > > I'm ok with DFN plus supporting text. Kevin, are you ok with that? >
sure _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
