[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bl006fdb.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 21:36:00 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] iommu/sva: Assign a PASID to mm on PASID
allocation and free it on mm exit
On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 21:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Hrm. This is odd.
>
>> +/* Associate a PASID with an mm_struct: */
>> +static inline void mm_pasid_get(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 pasid)
>> +{
>> + mm->pasid = pasid;
>> +}
>
> This does not get anything. It sets the allocated PASID in the mm. The
> refcount on the PASID was already taken by the allocation. So this
> should be mm_pasid_set() or mm_pasid_install(), right?
And as a result of all this ioasid_get() is now left without users...
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists