From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8468E7B for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:29:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 123so170042011wmz.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:29:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=uTL+IVv754VKlffGTqRbiZs8UKMGWEq+PDHpWHpSfvo=; b=j3hPFCbaz+7NXegsd5HROLJQTEtAe5hwApaJCmdN6T1N05Z0J23C5X3H5xyLzYO0UL Yq6oSpILNaoNmXdxJxoc3C9cLyD8pwcbKvlcGS0ps4YnhMlyYv4AvuhkZ84lgoBNJVPU PTYMo78JLQPnWaexFjF26uiJ7FC8Nf32fwdaSfMlb66lVOlBq1g5JlX9fruzio9WAWtB xIcbQwuDoR30u9s/6Eu06tJnhJONfxoBuvdJ1cbB6LJpSj3AZMOeAkIOYx2bOBwA2SY1 h6Mqe9XVa8ObYfYnpPevN6AqKidQbBqawKgAL7rQ3y/KU4QMTojCSbMWn7tzKUKDyi4x w27A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=uTL+IVv754VKlffGTqRbiZs8UKMGWEq+PDHpWHpSfvo=; b=nC9rsf6dNFyI/ATkveN9DwKMSUMz3JqBaq6LkK1xQsEAKNEclkFrLTGM70LFAOEa3S YH8LQEavoTWVX87B8ScKExz8i8c9SdSqcQ5j+k2QrS2np/fSJd0CdV07/N2cZUqAMle3 e7Ufedo6ADYRldFBnJT/l22vZaSAav1P7d2rqf6ZAer69mEmhE4UZaAgnWToXR+qr0B6 9Wwtwtkx2qyqNbWlMkt9Q87jQGSRm+RbYbQYYeJn7qYSM7DvTtRkuf5nRIq6hRmDe/9l uqKOVvhd6jEBNWFnqaJzyRPhxGRsnUzQw2X91hQH1i/xzbr0jjCV9hxhwWQoaoATTsoJ Lwtg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbnVEo5iG18gAGZvU4kXdab4FFEvYNbt30uWobMeXQR6Zo1WaVxinzuNtisu/A+NyMQo19uPLcMuOX0crxJDRTbpt/Bg== X-Received: by 10.194.111.232 with SMTP id il8mr48254634wjb.150.1453375775549; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w194sm2289510wmd.0.2016.01.21.03.29.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:29:34 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Santosh Shukla Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:28:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1491599.cgkG2mIphR@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1453229842-15310-1-git-send-email-sshukla@mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Alex Williamson Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 08/11] eal: pci: introduce RTE_KDRV_VFIO_NOIOMMUi driver mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:29:36 -0000 2016-01-21 16:43, Santosh Shukla: > David Marchand wrote: > > This is a mode (specific to vfio), not a new kernel driver. > > > Yes, Specific to VFIO and this is why noiommu appended after vfio i.e.. > __VFIO and __VFIO_NOIOMMU. Woaaa! Your logic is really disappointing :) Specific to VFIO => append _NOIOMMU If it's for VFIO, it should be called VFIO (that's my logic). > > How come we need to distinguish between with/without iommu modes ? > > By default vfio framework assumes iommu i.,e., iommu present. Unless user > explicitly set "enable_unsafe_noiommu_mode" param. so in my opinion, we > care to parse vfio driver for _noiommu_ mode only. Why do we care to parse noiommu only? Even if virtio cannot work in an IOMMU case, there is no reason to add a VFIO_NOIOMMU type here. > > Should not vfio behave the same way from an api point of view ? > > > Yes It should. vfio gives similar file_ops i.e.. read/write/mmap/seek etc.. > I am little confused on your question, do you see any issue in vfio bar > rd/wr api implementation? I think you should just consider the VFIO API and let the noiommu option as a kernel configuration detail.