linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v10 1/5] iommu/vt-d: add pci_dev parameter to qi_submit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5de13afa-4079-467a-a7b1-badfb9ac95cc@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:51:53 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, kevin.tian@...el.com,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, will@...nel.org,
 robin.murphy@....com, lukas@...ner.de
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 1/5] iommu/vt-d: add pci_dev parameter to
 qi_submit_sync and refactor callers


On 1/10/2024 12:59 PM, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 12/29/23 1:02 AM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Please don't leave the message body empty. You should describe why do
> you want to add the change in this patch.
Seems the description part was lost, will append next version.
>
>> ---
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c          | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c         | 26 +++++------------
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.h         | 17 +++++------
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/irq_remapping.c |  2 +-
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c         | 11 ++-----
>>   drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c           | 13 ++++-----
>>   6 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>> index 23cb80d62a9a..3d661f2b7946 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>> @@ -1344,7 +1344,7 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu 
>> *iommu, int index, int wait_index)
>>    * can be part of the submission but it will not be polled for 
>> completion.
>>    */
>>   int qi_submit_sync(struct intel_iommu *iommu, struct qi_desc *desc,
>> -           unsigned int count, unsigned long options)
>> +           unsigned int count, unsigned long options, struct pci_dev 
>> *pdev)
>
> How about adding a bit in options parameter to tell whether the @pdev is
> valid?

well, checking the option bit or checking pdev == NULL, use one parameter

to describe another one is common function defination method if one

parameter couldn't self-describe.

This case, we always check pdev(one checking), and if we check option 
bit first, then have

to check pdev again (one or two checking).  I prefer checking pdev only.


Thanks,

Ethan

>
> Best regards,
> baolu