Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Sep 2023 20:47:35 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] iommu: Make iommu_queue_iopf() more generic | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2023/9/22 20:43, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:44:45AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > >>>>> @@ -112,6 +110,7 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> int ret; >>>>> struct iopf_group *group; >>>>> + struct iommu_domain *domain; >>>>> struct iopf_fault *iopf, *next; >>>>> struct iommu_fault_param *iopf_param; >>>>> struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu; >>>>> @@ -143,6 +142,19 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, struct device *dev) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> + if (fault->prm.flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID) >>>>> + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid(dev, fault->prm.pasid, 0); >>>>> + else >>>>> + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev); >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!domain || !domain->iopf_handler) { >>>> Does it need to check if 'domain' is error ? Like below: >>>> >>>> if (!domain || IS_ERR(domain) || !domain->iopf_handler) >>> Urk, yes, but not like that >>> >>> The IF needs to be moved into the else block as each individual >>> function has its own return convention. >> iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid() returns an ERR_PTR only if the matching >> domain type is specified (non-zero). >> >> Adding IS_ERR(domain) in the else block will make the code more >> readable. Alternatively we can put a comment around above code to >> explain that ERR_PTR is not a case here. > You should check it because you'll probably get a static tool > complaint otherwise
Okay, got you.
Best regards, baolu
| |