From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/uapi: Define uapi version and capabilities
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:15:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200414081500.GB7315@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413162129.313b3b5a@w520.home>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Is the objection to a global version or to any version fields? I don't
> really understand the global version, I'd think a mechanism to check
> extensions plus a per structure flags/version would be preferred. The
> former should resolve how userspace can test support for features
> requiring multiple interfaces. A global version also implies that
> we're only ever adding features and never removing. For example,
> feature Foo is added in version 4, but it's replaced by feature Bar in
> version 5, now userspace can't simply test version >= 4 must include
> feature Foo.
The objection is to versions vs the much more sensible struct size +
capability flags. Making it global just increases the problems with
a version for all of the above reasons.
> It seems to me that version and flags can also be complimentary, for
> example a field might be defined by a version but a flag could indicate
> if it's implemented. With only the flag, we'd infer the field from the
> flag, with only the version we'd need to assume the field is always
> implemented. So I have a hard time making a blanket statement that all
> versions fields should be avoided.
s/version/struct size/, but otherwise agreed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/uapi: Define uapi version and capabilities
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:15:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200414081500.GB7315@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413162129.313b3b5a@w520.home>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Is the objection to a global version or to any version fields? I don't
> really understand the global version, I'd think a mechanism to check
> extensions plus a per structure flags/version would be preferred. The
> former should resolve how userspace can test support for features
> requiring multiple interfaces. A global version also implies that
> we're only ever adding features and never removing. For example,
> feature Foo is added in version 4, but it's replaced by feature Bar in
> version 5, now userspace can't simply test version >= 4 must include
> feature Foo.
The objection is to versions vs the much more sensible struct size +
capability flags. Making it global just increases the problems with
a version for all of the above reasons.
> It seems to me that version and flags can also be complimentary, for
> example a field might be defined by a version but a flag could indicate
> if it's implemented. With only the flag, we'd infer the field from the
> flag, with only the version we'd need to assume the field is always
> implemented. So I have a hard time making a blanket statement that all
> versions fields should be avoided.
s/version/struct size/, but otherwise agreed.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 23:17 [PATCH v2 0/3] IOMMU user API enhancement Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/uapi: Define uapi version and capabilities Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-26 9:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-26 9:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-26 16:44 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-26 16:44 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-27 2:49 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-27 2:49 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-27 7:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-27 7:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-27 23:53 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-27 23:53 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-30 5:40 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-30 5:40 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-30 16:07 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-30 16:07 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-31 6:06 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-31 6:06 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-31 15:54 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-31 15:54 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-01 5:32 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-01 5:32 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-02 18:36 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-02 18:36 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-13 20:41 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-13 20:41 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-13 22:21 ` Alex Williamson
2020-04-13 22:21 ` Alex Williamson
2020-04-14 5:05 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 5:05 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 16:13 ` Alex Williamson
2020-04-14 16:13 ` Alex Williamson
2020-04-14 17:13 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 17:13 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 22:32 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 22:32 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 23:47 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-14 23:47 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-15 15:38 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-15 15:38 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-16 1:27 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-16 1:27 ` Tian, Kevin
2020-04-14 8:15 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-04-14 8:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-14 8:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-14 8:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-14 16:06 ` Jacob Pan
2020-04-14 16:06 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] iommu/uapi: Use unified UAPI version Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] iommu/uapi: Add helper function for size lookup Jacob Pan
2020-03-25 23:17 ` Jacob Pan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200414081500.GB7315@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.