On 02/05/2019 07:58, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>
> On 5/1/19 12:38 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> On 08/04/2019 13:18, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> +int iommu_cache_invalidate(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>>> + struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info *inv_info)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (unlikely(!domain->ops->cache_invalidate))
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> +
>>> + ret = domain->ops->cache_invalidate(domain, dev, inv_info);
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> Nit: you don't really need ret
>>
>> The UAPI looks good to me, so
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx>
> Just to make sure, do you accept changes proposed by Jacob in
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/29/659 ie.
> - the addition of NR_IOMMU_INVAL_GRANU in enum iommu_inv_granularity and
> - the addition of NR_IOMMU_CACHE_TYPE
Ah sorry, I forgot about that, I'll review the next version. Yes they
can be useful (maybe call them IOMMU_INV_GRANU_NR and
IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_NR?). I guess it's legal to export in UAPI values
that will change over time, as VFIO also does it in its enums.
Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
