[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfd9e0b8-167e-a79b-9ef1-b3bfa38c9199@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 16:04:12 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.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: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] iommu: Make iommu_queue_iopf() more generic
On 8/25/23 4:17 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> +static void assert_no_pending_iopf(struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_fault_param *iopf_param = dev->iommu-
>>> fault_param;
>> + struct iopf_fault *iopf;
>> +
>> + if (!iopf_param)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&iopf_param->lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(iopf, &iopf_param->partial, list) {
>> + if (WARN_ON(iopf->fault.prm.pasid == pasid))
>> + break;
>> + }
> partial list is protected by dev_iommu lock.
>
Ah, do you mind elaborating a bit more? In my mind, partial list is
protected by dev_iommu->fault_param->lock.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists