Hi Eric, On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:32 PM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Eugenio, > > On 9/1/20 4:26 PM, Eugenio Pérez wrote: > > Adapt intel and vhost to use this new notification type > I think you should explain in the commit message what is the benefice to > introduce this new event type.
Will do, thanks! > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com> > > --- > > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +- > > hw/virtio/vhost.c | 2 +- > > include/exec/memory.h | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > index 0c4aef5cb5..cdddb089e7 100644 > > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > > @@ -2468,7 +2468,7 @@ static bool > > vtd_process_device_iotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s, > > sz = VTD_PAGE_SIZE; > > } > > > > - event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP; > > + event.type = IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB; > If this is used only for device IOTLB cache invalidation, shouldn't this > be named IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB_UNMAP to be consistent with the rest? > > event.entry.target_as = &vtd_dev_as->as; > > event.entry.addr_mask = sz - 1; > > event.entry.iova = addr; > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c > > index 1a1384e7a6..6ca168b47e 100644 > > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c > > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c > > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static void vhost_iommu_region_add(MemoryListener > > *listener, > > iommu_idx = memory_region_iommu_attrs_to_index(iommu_mr, > > MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED); > > iommu_notifier_init(&iommu->n, vhost_iommu_unmap_notify, > > - IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP, > > + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB, > > section->offset_within_region, > > int128_get64(end), > > iommu_idx); > > diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h > > index 8a56707169..215e23973d 100644 > > --- a/include/exec/memory.h > > +++ b/include/exec/memory.h > > @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ typedef enum { > > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP = 0x1, > > /* Notify entry changes (newly created entries) */ > > IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP = 0x2, > > + /* Notify changes on device IOTLB entries */ > > + IOMMU_NOTIFIER_DEVIOTLB = 0x04, > > } IOMMUNotifierFlag; > > > > #define IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL (IOMMU_NOTIFIER_MAP | IOMMU_NOTIFIER_UNMAP) > shouldn't we rename this one?? > > > Agree, but I'm not sure about the right name. IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_ROOT? IOMMU_NOTIFIER_ALL_REGULAR? Thanks! > Thanks > > Eric >