lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault_param static
From
On 8/4/23 11:56 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:17 AM
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mutex_init(&param->lock);
>>>> + param->fault_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param->fault_param),
>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!param->fault_param) {
>>>> + kfree(param);
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + }
>>>> + mutex_init(&param->fault_param->lock);
>>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&param->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?
>>
>
> or just iopf_param.

Okay.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-04 07:39    [W:0.100 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site