On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:15:24AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 9/17/2020 8:06 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:27:35PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > drivers/dma/idxd/idxd.h | 65 + > > > drivers/dma/idxd/init.c | 100 ++ > > > drivers/dma/idxd/irq.c | 6 > > > drivers/dma/idxd/mdev.c | 1089 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/dma/idxd/mdev.h | 118 ++ > > > > It is common that drivers of a subsystem will be under that > > subsystem's directory tree. This allows the subsystem community to > > manage pages related to their subsystem and it's drivers. > > > > Should the mdev parts be moved there? > > I personally don't have a preference. I'll defer to Alex or Kirti to provide > that guidance. It may make certains things like dealing with dma fault > regions and etc easier using vfio calls from vfio_pci_private.h later on for > vSVM support. It also may be the better code review and maintenance domain > and alleviate Vinod having to deal with that portion since it's not > dmaengine domain. That is the general reason, yes. Asking the dmaengine maintainer to review mdev just means it won't be reviewed properly. This mistake has been made before and I view it as a lesson from the ARM SOC disaggregation. Jason
