Re: [PATCH 1/4] vdpa: introduce config op to get valid iova range

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:53:09AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/8/10 下午8:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:43:54PM +0300, Eli Cohen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:03:55PM +0300, Eli Cohen wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 08:51:56AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:29:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch introduce a config op to get valid iova range from the vDPA
> > > > > > > device.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >   include/linux/vdpa.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/vdpa.h b/include/linux/vdpa.h
> > > > > > > index 239db794357c..b7633ed2500c 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/vdpa.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/vdpa.h
> > > > > > > @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ struct vdpa_device {
> > > > > > >   	unsigned int index;
> > > > > > >   };
> > > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > > + * vDPA IOVA range - the IOVA range support by the device
> > > > > > > + * @start: start of the IOVA range
> > > > > > > + * @end: end of the IOVA range
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +struct vdpa_iova_range {
> > > > > > > +	u64 start;
> > > > > > > +	u64 end;
> > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is ambiguous. Is end in the range or just behind it?
> > > > > > How about first/last?
> > > > > It is customary in the kernel to use start-end where end corresponds to
> > > > > the byte following the last in the range. See struct vm_area_struct
> > > > > vm_start and vm_end fields
> > > > Exactly my point:
> > > > 
> > > > include/linux/mm_types.h:       unsigned long vm_end;           /* The first byte after our end address
> > > > 
> > > > in this case Jason wants it to be the last byte, not one behind.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > Maybe start, size? Not ambiguous, and you don't need to do annoying
> > > calculations like size = last - start + 1
> > Size has a bunch of issues: can overlap, can not cover the entire 64 bit
> > range. The requisite checks are arguably easier to get wrong than
> > getting the size if you need it.
> 
> 
> Yes, so do you still prefer first/last or just begin/end which is consistent
> with iommu_domain_geometry?
> 
> Thanks

I prefer first/last I think, these are unambiguous.
E.g.

        dma_addr_t aperture_start; /* First address that can be mapped    */
        dma_addr_t aperture_end;   /* Last address that can be mapped     */

instead of addressing ambiguity with a comment, let's just name the field well.



> 
> >