[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527663D97345FC8CD9683AB28C98A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 04:13:54 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "jgg@...dia.com"
<jgg@...dia.com>, "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>, "eric.auger@...hat.com"
<eric.auger@...hat.com>, "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com"
<mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, "chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com"
<chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, "yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com"
<yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>, "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, "lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "Duan,
Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>, "joao.m.martins@...cle.com"
<joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "j.granados@...sung.com" <j.granados@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 7/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow qi_submit_sync() to return the
QI faults
> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 12:03 PM
>
> On 2023/12/22 12:23, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM
> >>
> >> + fault &= DMA_FSTS_IQE | DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE;
> >> + if (fault) {
> >> + if (fsts)
> >> + *fsts |= fault;
> >
> > do we expect the fault to be accumulated? otherwise it's clearer to
> > just do direct assignment instead of asking for the caller to clear
> > the variable before invocation.
>
> not quite get. do you mean the fault should not be cleared in the caller
> side?
>
I meant:
if (fsts)
*fsts = fault;
unless there is a reason to *OR* the original value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists