Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:43:08 +0200 | From | Joerg Roedel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/13] Introduce IOMMU-API TLB Flushing Interface |
| |
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:35:20AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > Wouldn't it be much more friendly to downstreams and out-of-tree > drivers to introduce new functions for the async semantics? ie. > iommu_map_async(), etc. The API also seems a little cleaner that > iommu_map() stands alone, it's synchronous, iommu_map_async() is > explicitly asynchronous and a _flush() call is needed to finalize it. > What do you see as the advantage to the approach here? Thanks,
The reason I did it this way was that I want the iommu_map(), iommu_unmap(), and iomu_map_sg() functions be considered the _default_ to chose when using the IOMMU-API, because their use is faster than using the _sync() variants. Or in other words, I want the _sync function names to imply that they are slower versions of the default ones.
Regards,
Joerg
| |