[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e970367-746e-0e74-ba39-e941fdbfdab7@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 10:59:34 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Fix possible recursive locking in
intel_iommu_init()
Hi Kevin,
On 2022/7/21 15:39, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 7:53 AM
>>
>> @@ -88,7 +89,8 @@ extern struct list_head dmar_drhd_units;
>> static inline bool dmar_rcu_check(void)
>> {
>> return rwsem_is_locked(&dmar_global_lock) ||
>> - system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING;
>> + system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING ||
>> + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU)
>> && !intel_iommu_enabled);
>> }
>
> intel_iommu_enabled is 0 if CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU is not set.
>
> same for other similar checks.
Sorry that I didn't get your point. If CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU is not set,
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU) is 0. The adding check has no effect. Did
I miss anything?
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists