Re: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling

[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"