Re: [PATCH 00/13] Introduce IOMMU-API TLB Flushing Interface

[Joerg Roedel]

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