[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f61dca1b-3de6-4767-96ac-0c20fd730bec@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:09:20 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/12] iommu: Remove
iommu_[un]register_device_fault_handler()
On 2023/12/4 20:36, Yi Liu wrote:
>> /**
>> * iommu_report_device_fault() - Report fault event to device driver
>> * @dev: the device
>> @@ -1395,10 +1325,6 @@ int iommu_report_device_fault(struct device
>> *dev, struct iommu_fault_event *evt)
>> /* we only report device fault if there is a handler registered */
>> mutex_lock(¶m->lock);
>> fparam = param->fault_param;
>> - if (!fparam || !fparam->handler) {
>
> should it still check the fparam?
Yes.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists