linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] iommu: use the __iommu_attach

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:57:05 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        will@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        robin.murphy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] iommu: use the __iommu_attach_device() directly
 for deferred attach

Hi, Christoph

在 2021年01月19日 23:29, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
>> +int iommu_do_deferred_attach(struct device *dev,
>> +			     struct iommu_domain *domain)
> 
> I'd remove the "do_" from the name, it doesn't really add any value.
> 
OK.

>> +{
>> +	const struct iommu_ops *ops = domain->ops;
>> +
>> +	if (unlikely(ops->is_attach_deferred &&
>> +		     ops->is_attach_deferred(domain, dev)))
>> +		return __iommu_attach_device(domain, dev);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
> 
> Now that everyting is under the static key we don't really need to
> bother with the unlikely micro optimization, do we?
> 
Good understanding. I can remove it, otherwise it should use the likely().

>> +extern int iommu_do_deferred_attach(struct device *dev,
>> +				    struct iommu_domain *domain);
> 
> No need for the extern.
> 
Sounds good. I will remove the 'extern' when I post again.

Thanks.
Lianbo