[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5276BF8DD07ED055B271BFCC8CE3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 08:05:48 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
CC: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 08/10] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF
> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 10:30 AM
>
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(iopf, next, &group->faults, list) {
> + list_for_each_entry(iopf, &group->faults, list) {
> /*
> * For the moment, errors are sticky: don't handle
> subsequent
> * faults in the group if there is an error.
> @@ -69,14 +62,10 @@ static void iopf_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> if (status == IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS)
> status = domain->iopf_handler(&iopf->fault,
> domain->fault_data);
> -
> - if (!(iopf->fault.prm.flags &
> - IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_LAST_PAGE))
> - kfree(iopf);
> }
then no need to continue if status is not success. Yes this is fixed
in next patch but logically the change more suits here.
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists