Re: [PATCH v7 05/23] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API

[Jean-Philippe Brucker]

On 02/05/2019 17:46, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 11:53:34 +0100
> Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/05/2019 07:58, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>>>
>>> On 5/1/19 12:38 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:  
>>>> On 08/04/2019 13:18, Eric Auger wrote:  
>>>>> +int iommu_cache_invalidate(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
>>>>> device *dev,
>>>>> +			   struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info
>>>>> *inv_info) +{
>>>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (unlikely(!domain->ops->cache_invalidate))
>>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ret = domain->ops->cache_invalidate(domain, dev,
>>>>> inv_info); +
>>>>> +	return ret;  
>>>>
>>>> Nit: you don't really need ret
>>>>
>>>> The UAPI looks good to me, so
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>>>> <jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx>  
>>> Just to make sure, do you accept changes proposed by Jacob in
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/29/659 ie.
>>> - the addition of NR_IOMMU_INVAL_GRANU in enum
>>> iommu_inv_granularity and
>>> - the addition of NR_IOMMU_CACHE_TYPE  
>>
>> Ah sorry, I forgot about that, I'll review the next version. Yes they
>> can be useful (maybe call them IOMMU_INV_GRANU_NR and
>> IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_NR?). I guess it's legal to export in UAPI values
>> that will change over time, as VFIO also does it in its enums.
>>
> I am fine with the names. Maybe you can put this patch in your sva/api
> branch once you reviewed it? Having a common branch for common code
> makes life so much easier.

Done, with minor whitespace and name fixes

Thanks,
Jean