Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:33:02 -0400 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] iommu: Add iommu_domain::domain_ops |
| |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:16:07AM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:58:18AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > > > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:11 PM > > > +/** > > > + * struct domain_ops - per-domain ops > > > + * @attach_dev: attach an iommu domain to a device > > > + * @detach_dev: detach an iommu domain from a device > > > > What is the criteria about whether an op should be iommu_ops or domain_ops > > when it requires both domain and device pointers like above two (and future > > PASID-based attach)? > > > > Other examples include: > > @apply_resv_region > > @is_attach_deferred > > Could attach_dev() be an IOMMU op? So a driver could set the domain ops > in attach_dev() rather than domain_alloc(). That would allow to install > map()/unmap() ops that are tailored for the device's IOMMU, which we don't > know at domain_alloc() time.
I think we should be moving toward 'domain_alloc' returning the correct domain and the way the driver implements the domain shouldn't change after that.
> I'm thinking about a guest that has both physical and virtual > endpoints, which would ideally use different kinds of domain ops to > support both efficiently (caching mode vs page tables)
In this case shouldn't domain_alloc() reached from the struct device already do the correct thing?
Jason
| |