Hi Thomas,
> > +/* DMA mapping function prototype.
> > + * Takes VFIO container fd as a parameter.
> > + * Returns 0 on success, -1 on error.
> > + * */
> > +typedef int (*vfio_dma_func_t)(int);
> > +
> > +struct vfio_iommu_type {
> > + int type_id;
> > + const char *name;
> > + vfio_dma_func_t dma_map_func;
> > +};
> > +
> > +int vfio_iommu_type1_dma_map(int);
> > +int vfio_iommu_noiommu_dma_map(int);
>
> Is it possible (is it better) to declare these functions with vfio_dma_func_t?
Yeah, sure. Or maybe the other way around - maybe we could do away with the
typedef. I'll go for the former though.
> vfio_iommu_noiommu_dma_map is a weird name.
> Why not vfio_noiommu_dma_map or vfio_iommu_none_dma_map?
Well, the NOIOMMU type is named VFIO_IOMMU_NOIOMMU in the VFIO headers. So it's
consistent with the IOMMU type name. Although vfio_noiommu_dma_map seems
reasonable.
Thanks,
Anatoly
