Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:15:28 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling | From | Ethan Zhao <> |
| |
在 2022/6/28 22:20, Jean-Philippe Brucker 写道: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 07:53:39PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: >>>>> Once the iopf_handle_single() is removed, the name of >>>>> iopf_handle_group() looks a little weired >>>>> >>>>> and confused, does this group mean the iommu group (domain) ? >>>>> while I take some minutes to >>>> No. This is not the iommu group. It's page request group defined by the >>>> PCI SIG spec. Multiple page requests could be put in a group with a >>>> same group id. All page requests in a group could be responded to device >>>> in one shot. >>> Thanks your explaination, understand the concept of PCIe PRG. I meant >>> >>> do we still have the necessity to mention the "group" here in the name >>> >>> iopf_handle_group(), which one is better ? iopf_handle_prg() or >>> >>> iopf_handler(), perhaps none of them ? :) >> Oh! Sorry for the misunderstanding. >> >> I have no strong feeling to change this naming. :-) All the names >> express what the helper does. Jean is the author of this framework. If >> he has the same idea as you, I don't mind renaming it in this patch. > I'm not attached to the name, and I see how it could be confusing. Given > that io-pgfault is not only for PCIe, 'prg' is not the best here either. > iopf_handle_faults(), or just iopf_handler(), seem more suitable.
Both iopf_handle_faults() and iopf_handler() looks straight, iopf_handler()
saves one word 'faults', iopf already has the meaning 'io page fault' , so
iopf_handler() is clear enough I think.
Thanks,
Ethan
> > Thanks, > Jean
-- "firm, enduring, strong, and long-lived"
| |