On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 02:12:04PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 6/14/25 15:14, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > + if (!viommu->ops || !viommu->ops->get_hw_queue_size ||
> > + !viommu->ops->hw_queue_init_phys) {
> > + rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto out_put_viommu;
> > + }
Hmm, here it does abort when !viommu->ops->hw_queue_init_phys ..
> > + /*
> > + * FIXME once ops->hw_queue_init is introduced, this should check "if
> > + * ops->hw_queue_init_phys". And "access" should be initialized to NULL.
> > + */
>
> I just don't follow here. Up until now, only viommu->ops->
> hw_queue_init_phys has been added, which means the current code only
> supports hardware queues that access guest memory using physical
> addresses. The access object is not needed for the other type of
> hardware queue that uses guest IOVA.
>
> So, why not just abort here if ops->hw_queue_init_phys is not supported
> by the IOMMU driver?
.. so, it already does.
> Leave other logics to the patches that introduce
> ops->hw_queue_init? I guess that would make this patch more readible.
The patch is doing in the way to support the hw_queue_init_phys
case only. It is just adding some extra FIXMEs as the guideline
for the future patch adding hw_queue_init op.
I personally don't feel these are confusing. Maybe you can help
point out what specific wording feels odd here? Maybe "FIXME"s
should be "TODO"s?
I could also drop all of these guideline if they are considered
very unnecessary.
Thanks
Nicolin
