Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:20:32 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 03/15] iommu: Always register bus notifiers | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2022/7/6 21:43, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2022-07-06 02:53, Baolu Lu wrote: >> On 2022/7/6 01:08, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> /* >>> * Use a function instead of an array here because the domain-type >>> is a >>> * bit-field, so an array would waste memory. >>> @@ -152,6 +172,10 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void) >>> (iommu_cmd_line & IOMMU_CMD_LINE_STRICT) ? >>> "(set via kernel command line)" : ""); >>> + /* If the system is so broken that this fails, it will WARN >>> anyway */ >> >> Can you please elaborate a bit on this? iommu_bus_init() still return >> errors. > > Indeed, it's commenting on the fact that we don't try to clean up or > propagate an error value further even if it did ever manage to return > one. I feared that if I strip the error handling out of iommu_bus_init() > itself on the same reasoning, we'll just get constant patches from the > static checker brigade trying to add it back, so it seemed like the > neatest compromise to keep that decision where it's obviously in an > early initcall, rather than in the helper function which can be viewed > out of context. However, I'm happy to either expand this comment or go > the whole way and make iommu_bus_init() return void if you think it's > worthwhile.
Thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful if the comment could be expanded. In this case, after a long time, people will not consider it an oversight. :-)
Best regards, baolu
> > Cheers, > Robin. > >> >>> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iommu_buses); i++) >>> + iommu_bus_init(iommu_buses[i]); >>> + >>> return 0; >> >> Best regards, >> baolu >
| |