Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:34:53 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault_param static | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
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(¶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? >> > > or just iopf_param.
Okay.
Best regards, baolu
| |