[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <369bf961-d5e5-998f-542d-f90bc4c6cb28@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:38:44 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....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 06/12] iommu/vt-d: Acquiring lock in domain ID allocation
helpers
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for the comments.
On 2022/6/1 17:09, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 2:30 PM
>>
>> The iommu->lock is used to protect the per-IOMMU domain ID resource.
>> Move the spinlock acquisition/release into the helpers where domain
>> IDs are allocated and freed. The device_domain_lock is irrelevant to
>> domain ID resources, remove its assertion as well.
> while moving the lock you also replace spin_lock_irqsave() with spin_lock().
> It'd be cleaner to just do movement here and then replace all _irqsave()
> in patch 8.
Yeah, that will be clearer.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists