Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:16:56 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault_param static | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2023/8/3 16:08, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 1:49 PM >> >> @@ -4630,7 +4621,6 @@ static int intel_iommu_disable_iopf(struct device >> *dev) >> * fault handler and removing device from iopf queue should never >> * fail. >> */ >> - WARN_ON(iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(dev)); >> WARN_ON(iopf_queue_remove_device(iommu->iopf_queue, dev)); > > the comment should be updated too.
Ack.
> >> >> mutex_init(¶m->lock); >> + param->fault_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param->fault_param), >> GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!param->fault_param) { >> + kfree(param); >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + } >> + mutex_init(¶m->fault_param->lock); >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(¶m->fault_param->faults); > > let's also move 'partial' from struct iopf_device_param into struct > iommu_fault_param. That logic is not specific to sva. > > meanwhile probably iopf_device_param can be renamed to > iopf_sva_param since all the remaining fields are only used by > the sva handler. > > current naming (iommu_fault_param vs. iopf_device_param) is a > bit confusing when reading related code.
My understanding is that iommu_fault_param is for all kinds of iommu faults. Currently they probably include recoverable IO page faults or unrecoverable DMA faults.
While, iopf_device_param is for the recoverable IO page faults. I agree that this naming is not specific and even confusing. Perhaps renaming it to something like iommu_iopf_param?
Best regards, baolu
| |