On 2022/6/28 22:20, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
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.

Okay, so I will rename it to iopf_handle_faults() in this patch.

Best regards,
baolu
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to