Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 7/7] vtd: add lookup_page method to iommu_ops

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 18 September 2018 14:20
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu
> <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] vtd: add lookup_page method to iommu_ops
> 
> >>> On 13.09.18 at 17:21, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -179,9 +181,17 @@ struct iommu_ops {
> >  #endif /* HAS_PCI */
> >
> >      void (*teardown)(struct domain *d);
> > +
> > +    /*
> > +     * This block of operations must be appropriately locked against
> each
> > +     * other to have meaningful results.
> > +     */
> >      int __must_check (*map_page)(struct domain *d, dfn_t dfn, mfn_t
> mfn,
> >                                   unsigned int flags);
> >      int __must_check (*unmap_page)(struct domain *d, dfn_t dfn);
> > +    int __must_check (*lookup_page)(struct domain *d, dfn_t dfn, mfn_t
> *mfn,
> > +                                    unsigned int *flags);
> 
> I'm afraid the comment is ambiguous: It may mean the implementations
> of the hooks have to have suitable locking in place, or callers have to
> take care of locking. I think the latter is meant, which I think needs to
> be made explicit. With that
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 

Thanks. Yes, the latter is what I meant. Can you fix the wording as you see fit 
during commit?

  Paul

> Jan
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel