On Thu, 2 May 2019 11:53:34 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I am fine with the names. Maybe you can put this patch in your sva/api
branch once you reviewed it? Having a common branch for common code
makes life so much easier.
