Re: [patch 19/33] genirq/msi: Provide msi_desc::msi_data

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>,
	Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@linutronix.de>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 19/33] genirq/msi: Provide msi_desc::msi_data
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:52:56 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3wreJlD/7TsMCme@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bkp0hzai.ffs@tglx>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:40:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21 2022 at 13:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Sure I could make both cookies plain u64, but I hate these forced type
> >> casts and the above is simple to handle and understand.
> >
> > I guess, they aren't what I think of as cookies, so I wouldn't make
> > them u64 in the first place.
> >
> > The argument to msi_domain_alloc_irq_at() ideally wants to be a
> > per-domain-type struct so we can folow it around more cleanly. This is
> > C so we have to type erase it as a void * through the core code, but
> > OK.
> 
> When looking at the wire to MSI abomination and also PASID there is no
> real per domain struct. It's plain integer information and I hate to
> store it in a pointer. Especially as the pointer width on 32bit is not
> necessarily sufficient.
> 
> Allocating 8 bytes and tracking them to be freed would be an horrible
> idea.

No, not allocation, just wrap in a stack variable:

  struct foo_bar_domain_data arg = {.pasid = XX};

  msi_domain_alloc_irq_at(..., &arg);

Then there is a great big clue right in the code who is supposed to be
consuming that opaque argument. grep the code for foo_bar_domain_data
and you can find the receiving side

> At least from the two examples I have (IDXD and wire2MSI) the per
> instance union works perfectly fine and I can't see a reason why
> e.g. for your usecase
> 
>      cookie = { .ptr = myqueue };
> 
> would not work. 

I'm not saying not work, I'm asking about the style choice

Regards,
Jason