> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 3:56 PM > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 07:47:13AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > It is in the commit message of the cover-letter though: > > > > https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commit/5e17d270bfca2a5e3e7401d4b > > > f58ae53eb7a8a55 > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Changelog > > > v2: > > > * Integrated the uAPI into VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD call > > > * Renamed the previous set_rid_user to set_dev_data, to decouple from > > > the PCI regime. > > > v1: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1680762112.git.nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Could you add some words why changing from passing the information > > > > in an iommufd ioctl to bind_iommufd? My gut-feeling leans toward > > > > the latter option... > > > > > > Yea. Jason told me to decouple it from PCI. And merge it into > > > a general uAPI. So I picked the BIND ioctl. > > > > > > > 'decouple it from PCI' is kind of covered by renaming set_rid > > to set_data. but I didn't get why this has to be merged with another > > uAPI. Once iommufd_device is created we could have separate > > ioctls to poke its attributes individually. What'd be broken if this > > is not done at BIND time? > > Oh, sorry. He didn't literally told me to merge, but commented > "make sense" at my proposal of reusing BIND. So, I don't think > adding to the BIND is a must here. > > The BIND is done in vfio_realize() where the RID (dev_data) is > available also. And the new uAPI in my v1 actually gets called > near the BIND. So, I feel we may just do it once? I am open to > a better idea. > IMHO if this can be done within iommufd then that should be the choice. vfio doesn't need to know this data at all and doing so means vdpa or a 3rd driver also needs to implement similar logic in their uAPI...
