On 20/12/2021 13:57, Robin Murphy wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on this patch? The decision is whether we
stick with a single iova domain structure or support this super
structure for iova domains which support the rcache. I did not try the
former - it would be do-able but I am not sure on how it would look.
TBH I feel inclined to take the simpler approach of just splitting the
rcache array to a separate allocation, making init_iova_rcaches() public
(with a proper return value), and tweaking put_iova_domain() to make
rcache cleanup conditional. A residual overhead of 3 extra pointers in
iova_domain doesn't seem like *too* much for non-DMA-API users to bear.
OK, fine. So I tried as you suggested and it looks ok to me.
I'll send something out at rc1.
Unless you want to try generalising the rcache mechanism completely away
from IOVA API specifics, it doesn't seem like there's really enough to
justify the bother of having its own distinct abstraction layer.
Yeah, I don't see that as necessary.
However something which could be useful is to separate the magazine code
out for other possible users.
Thanks!
John
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu