On 10/15/2014 2:16 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:02:47PM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
On 9/25/2014 10:01 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:45:50PM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote:
+static inline int iommu_map_sg(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
+ struct scatterlist *sg, unsigned int nents,
+ int prot, unsigned long flags)
+{
+ return domain->ops->map_sg(domain, iova, sg, nents, prot, flags);
+}
+
+static inline int iommu_unmap_sg(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+ unsigned long iova, size_t size,
+ unsigned long flags)
+{
+ return domain->ops->unmap_sg(domain, iova, size, flags);
+}
I have thought a little bit more about this interface and think that it
would be better to just return a size_t from iommu_map_sg(). The
function returns the amount of address space mapped by it, 0 in the
worst case.
This makes it easy to unmap the region just with
iommu_unmap(domain, iova, size) in the end and removing the need for a
new iommu_unmap_sg() function. Also the error-path of the map_sg
call-backs becomes easier as the function then just returns the amount
of address-space already mapped before the error happened.
So the prototype would be:
size_t iommu_map_sg(struct iommu_domain *domain,
unsigned long iova,
struct scatterlist *sg,
unsigned int nents,
int prot);
(as I said before, the flags parameter should not be added by this
patch-set).
Ok, sounds good. I'll post v6 soon.
Perhaps make the return value ssize_t so that we can propagate errors?
I am fine with that. Joerg?
Thanks,
.Olav
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
