On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:51:14PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > If we put aside this issue, do you think that the proposed API is the right one? I haven't look at it in detail yet, but from a quick look there is a few things to note: 1) The amount of code needed in nvme worries me a bit. Now NVMe a messy driver due to the stupid PRPs vs just using SGLs, but needing a fair amount of extra boilerplate code in drivers is a bit of a warning sign. I plan to look into this to see if I can help on improving it, but for that I need a working version first. 2) The amount of seemingly unrelated global headers pulled into other global headers. Some of this might just be sloppiness, e.g. I can't see why dma-mapping.h would actually need iommu.h to start with, but pci.h in dma-map-ops.h is a no-go. 3) which brings me to real layering violations. dev_is_untrusted and dev_use_swiotlb are DMA API internals, no way I'd ever want to expose them. dma-map-ops.h is a semi-internal header only for implementations of the dma ops (as very clearly documented at the top of that file), it must not be included by drivers. Same for swiotlb.h. Not quite as concerning, but doing an indirect call for each map through dma_map_ops in addition to the iommu ops is not every efficient. We've through for a while to allow direct calls to dma-iommu similar how we do direct calls to dma-direct from the core mapping.c code. This might be a good time to do that as a prep step for this work.
