Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <bf2ae213-b938-2550-b367-f548fc755e99@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:24:49 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com,
        Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/11] iommu: Per-domain I/O page fault handling
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
References: <20220621144353.17547-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220621144353.17547-11-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <faacb997-0c0a-04e1-903d-53857f463214@linux.intel.com>
 <693a3604-d70b-e08c-2621-7f0cb9bdb6ca@linux.intel.com>
 <75b17c70-1658-91ea-0992-1be769550943@linux.intel.com>
 <935ca9e3-28c9-99af-5609-41bb1500b2b3@linux.intel.com>
 <YrsOO9E+j+CMgKMA@myrica>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YrsOO9E+j+CMgKMA@myrica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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