[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e958e77-be17-4428-2fc3-48c1e66914fa@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 15:33:04 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
Zhu Tony <tony.zhu@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 07/13] iommu/vt-d: Add SVA domain support
On 2022/8/18 21:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 09:20:18AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>
>> +static int intel_svm_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
>> +{
>> + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>> + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
>> + struct iommu_sva *sva;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&pasid_mutex);
>> + /*
>> + * Detach the domain if a blocking domain is set. Check the
>> + * right domain type once the IOMMU driver supports a real
>> + * blocking domain.
>> + */
>> + if (!domain || domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED) {
>> + intel_svm_unbind_mm(dev, pasid);
>
> See, I think this is exactly the wrong way to use the ops
>
> The blockin domain ops should have its own function that just
> unconditionally calls intel_svm_unbind_mm()
>
>> + } else {
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = domain->mm;
>> +
>> + sva = intel_svm_bind_mm(iommu, dev, mm);
>> + if (IS_ERR(sva))
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(sva);
>
> And similarly the SVA domain should have its own op that does this SVM
> call.
>
> Muxing the ops with tests on the domain is an anti-pattern. In fact I
> would say any time you see an op testing the domain->type it is very
> suspicious.
Both agreed. Will fix them in the next version.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists