On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 12:51:38PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:45 AM
> >
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> > b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> > > index 641f199f2d41..4839f128b24a 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > > struct iommufd_ctx {
> > > refcount_t refs;
> > > struct mutex lock;
> > > + struct xarray ioasid_xa; /* xarray of ioasids */
> > > struct xarray device_xa; /* xarray of bound devices */
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -42,6 +43,16 @@ struct iommufd_device {
> > > u64 dev_cookie;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/* Represent an I/O address space */
> > > +struct iommufd_ioas {
> > > + int ioasid;
> >
> > xarray id's should consistently be u32s everywhere.
>
> sure. just one more check, this id is supposed to be returned to
> userspace as the return value of ioctl(IOASID_ALLOC). That's why
> I chose to use "int" as its prototype to make it aligned with the
> return type of ioctl(). Based on this, do you think it's still better
> to use "u32" here?
I suggest not using the return code from ioctl to exchange data.. The
rest of the uAPI uses an in/out struct, everything should do
that consistently.
Jason
