Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 May 2022 12:55:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] iommu/sva: Add iommu_sva_domain support | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2022/5/20 00:33, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.h b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.h >> index 8909ea1094e3..1be21e6b93ec 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.h >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.h >> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ >> >> #include <linux/ioasid.h> >> #include <linux/mm_types.h> >> +#include <linux/iommu.h> >> >> int iommu_sva_alloc_pasid(struct mm_struct *mm, ioasid_t min, ioasid_t max); >> struct mm_struct *iommu_sva_find(ioasid_t pasid); >> @@ -16,6 +17,20 @@ struct device; >> struct iommu_fault; >> struct iopf_queue; >> >> +struct iommu_sva_domain { >> + struct iommu_domain domain; >> + struct mm_struct *mm; >> +}; >> + >> +#define to_sva_domain(d) container_of_safe(d, struct iommu_sva_domain, domain) > Is there a reason to use the 'safe' version of container_of()? Callers of > to_sva_domain() don't check the return value before dereferencing it so > they would break anyway if someone passes an error pointer as domain. I > think it matters because there is no other user of container_of_safe() in > the kernel (the only user, lustre, went away in 2018) so someone will want > to remove it.
Fair enough. I wondered why there's no user in the tree. Thanks for the explanation. I will replace it with container_of().
> > Apart from that > > Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker<jean-philippe@linaro.org> >
Thank you!
Best regards, baolu
| |