> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 07 September 2018 07:24 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; Kevin Tian > <[email protected]> > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>; Julien Grall > <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; xen- > devel <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/14] iommu: introduce the concept of > BFN... > > >>> On 07.09.18 at 03:47, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Paul Durrant [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:54 PM > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > Sent: 06 September 2018 14:13 > >> > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > >> > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>; Julien > Grall > >> > <[email protected]>; Kevin Tian <[email protected]>; Stefano > >> > Stabellini <[email protected]>; xen-devel <xen- > >> > [email protected]> > >> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/14] iommu: introduce the > concept > >> of > >> > BFN... > >> > > >> > >>> On 06.09.18 at 12:36, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > >> Sent: 05 September 2018 10:39 > >> > >> > >> > >> >>> On 05.09.18 at 11:13, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Personally I think 'bus address' is commonly enough used term for > >> > >> addresses > >> > >> > used by devices for DMA. Indeed we have already 'dev_bus_addr' > in > >> > the > >> > >> grant > >> > >> > map and unmap hypercalls. So baddr and bfn seem like ok terms to > >> me. > >> > It's > >> > >> > also not impossible to rename these later if they prove > problematic. > >> > >> > >> > >> But that's the point - the names are problematic (to me): I > >> permanently > >> > >> have to remind myself that they do _not_ refer to the addresses as > >> > >> seen when accessing memory, but the ones going _into_ the > IOMMU. > >> > > > >> > > Ok. Could we agree on 'IOFN' then? I think 'iova' and 'io address' are > >> also > >> > > reasonably widely used terms to refer to address from a device's PoV. > >> I'd > >> > > really like to unblock these early patches. > >> > > >> > Hmm, earlier I had indicated I'd prefer DFN (as this make clear whose > >> > view we are talking about). Kevin seemed to prefer DFN too, just with > >> > a different association for D (which, as said, I consider unhelpful). So > >> > is there a particular reason you're now suggesting IOFN nevertheless? > >> > >> It was the ambiguity and lack of agreement over the 'D' that made me > think > >> that the other alternative would be better. > >> Kevin, would you be ok with 'IOFN'? > >> > > > > My problem with DFN is when combining D with address then "device > > address" is not very clear to me while interpreting D as DMA is also > > not that clear from Jan's point. > > What about making its description mention both possible interpretations? >
I'm ok with DFN plus supporting text. Kevin, are you ok with that? Paul > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
