On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 07:53:37AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 11:21 AM
> >
> > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct iopt_area {
> > int iommu_prot;
> > bool prevent_access : 1;
> > unsigned int num_accesses;
> > + unsigned int num_owners;
>
> What about 'num_locked' to directly mark out that this area
> is locked hence cannot be removed?
Yea. That sounds more straightforward to me. I will keep it plural
"num_locks". And "is_owner" can be just "locks_area".
Thanks
Nicolin
