[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64fa931b-ea2d-f425-5baa-654216bac779@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:03:14 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/11] iommu: Make IOPF handling framework generic
On 2022/3/21 20:43, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:42:16AM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>
>> I tend to disagree with that last part. The fault is caused by a specific
>> device accessing shared page tables. We should keep that device
>> information throughout the fault handling, so that we can report it to the
>> driver when things go wrong.
> SVA faults should never be reported to drivers??
>
When things go wrong, the corresponding response code will be responded
to the device through iommu_page_response(). The hardware should then
report the failure to the device driver and the device driver will
handle it in the device-specific way. There's no need to propagate the
I/O page faults to the device driver in any case. Do I understand it
right?
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists