On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 01:10:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:24:57AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 65;6402;1c> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:25:54PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > > +struct iommufd_device {
> > > > + unsigned int id;
> > > > + struct iommufd_ctx *ictx;
> > > > + struct device *dev; /* always be the physical device */
> > > > + u64 dev_cookie;
> > >
> > > Why do you need both an 'id' and a 'dev_cookie'? Since they're both
> > > unique, couldn't you just use the cookie directly as the index into
> > > the xarray?
> >
> > ID is the kernel value in the xarray - xarray is much more efficient &
> > safe with small kernel controlled values.
> >
> > dev_cookie is a user assigned value that may not be unique. It's
> > purpose is to allow userspace to receive and event and go back to its
> > structure. Most likely userspace will store a pointer here, but it is
> > also possible userspace could not use it.
> >
> > It is a pretty normal pattern
>
> Hm, ok. Could you point me at an example?
For instance user_data vs fd in io_uring
RDMA has many similar examples.
More or less anytime you want to allow the kernel to async retun some
information providing a 64 bit user_data lets userspace have an easier
time to deal with it.
Jason
