Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] PCI: Add driver dma ownership management

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:38:42AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:03:42AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 09:56:37AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > Multiple PCI devices may be placed in the same IOMMU group because
> > > they cannot be isolated from each other. These devices must either be
> > > entirely under kernel control or userspace control, never a mixture. This
> > > checks and sets DMA ownership during driver binding, and release the
> > > ownership during driver unbinding.
> > > 
> > > The device driver may set a new flag (no_kernel_api_dma) to skip calling
> > > iommu_device_use_dma_api() during the binding process. For instance, the
> > > userspace framework drivers (vfio etc.) which need to manually claim
> > > their own dma ownership when assigning the device to userspace.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >  include/linux/pci.h      |  5 +++++
> > >  drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > index 18a75c8e615c..d29a990e3f02 100644
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > @@ -882,6 +882,10 @@ struct module;
> > >   *              created once it is bound to the driver.
> > >   * @driver:	Driver model structure.
> > >   * @dynids:	List of dynamically added device IDs.
> > > + * @no_kernel_api_dma: Device driver doesn't use kernel DMA API for DMA.
> > > + *		Drivers which don't require DMA or want to manually claim the
> > > + *		owner type (e.g. userspace driver frameworks) could set this
> > > + *		flag.
> > 
> > Again with the bikeshedding, but this name is a bit odd.  Of course it's
> > in the kernel, this is all kernel code, so you can drop that.  And
> > again, "negative" flags are rough.  So maybe just "prevent_dma"?
> 
> That is misleading too, it is not that DMA is prevented, but that the
> kernel's dma_api has not been setup.

"has not been" or "will not be"?

What you want to prevent is the iommu core claiming the device
automatically, right?  So how about "prevent_iommu_dma"?

naming is hard,

greg k-h



[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux