On 21/12/16 17:04, David Gibson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:28:58PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> c086de81 "vfio iommu: Add blocking notifier to notify DMA_UNMAP" added >> notifiers to a VFIO group. However even though the code underneath >> uses groups, the API takes device struct pointers. >> >> This adds helpers which do the same thing but take IOMMU groups instead. >> >> This adds vfio_iommu_group_set_kvm() which is a wrapper on top of >> vfio_group_set_kvm() but also takes an iommu_group. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@xxxxxxxxx> > > Adding a second interface in parallel seems dubious. > > Should the existing interface just be replaced with this one? > > Or can the existing interface be re-implemented in terms of this one? imho this should have been done in the first place but since Alex and I came to a conclusion that this does not simplify anything in my patchset (rather the opposite), I am not going to push it further now. 09/11, 10/11, 11/11 from this patchset are superseded by: [PATCH kernel v3] KVM: PPC: Add in-kernel acceleration for VFIO -- Alexey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
