On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:17:22PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:11:03PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:14:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:59:47AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > Driver can call the iommufd_viommu_find_device() to find a device pointer
> > > > > using its per-viommu virtual ID. The returned device must be protected by
> > > > > the pair of iommufd_viommu_lock/unlock_vdev_id() function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Put these three functions into a new viommu_api file, to build it with the
> > > > > IOMMUFD_DRIVER config.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/iommu/iommufd/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/iommu/iommufd/viommu_api.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > include/linux/iommufd.h | 16 ++++++++++++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/iommu/iommufd/viommu_api.c
> > > >
> > > > I still think this is better to just share the struct content with the
> > > > driver, eventually we want to do this anyhow as the driver will
> > > > want to use container_of() techniques to reach its private data.
> > >
> > > In my mind, exposing everything to the driver is something that
> > > we have to (for driver-managed structures) v.s. we want to...
> > > Even in that case, a driver actually only need to know the size
> > > of the core structure, without touching what's inside(?).
> > >
> > > I am a bit worried that drivers would abuse the content in the
> > > core-level structure.. Providing a set of API would encourage
> > > them to keep the core structure intact, hopefully..
> >
> > This is always a tension in the kernel. If the core apis can be nice
> > and tidy then it is a reasonable direction
> >
> > But here I think we've cross some threshold where the APIs are
> > complex, want to be inlined and really we just want to expose data not
> > APIs to drivers.
>
> OK. I'll think of a rework. And might need another justification
> for a DEFAULT type of vIOMMU object to fit in.
I tried exposing the struct iommufd_viommu to drivers, and was
able to drop a couple of helpers, except these two:
struct device *vdev_to_dev(struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev)
{
return vdev ? vdev->idev->dev : NULL;
} // Without it, we need to expose struct iommufd_device.
struct iommu_domain *
iommufd_viommu_to_parent_domain(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu)
{
if (!viommu || !viommu->hwpt)
return NULL;
return viommu->hwpt->common.domain;
} // Without it, we need to expose struct iommufd_hwpt_page.
Thanks
Nicolin
