[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56519d16-88a3-4ed8-a973-e931d22c478e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:06:19 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] iommufd: Associate fault object with
iommufd_hw_pgtable
On 2024/2/7 16:14, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:39 PM
>>
>> +
>> +int iommufd_fault_iopf_handler(struct iopf_group *group)
>> +{
>> + struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt = group->cookie->domain-
>>> fault_data;
>> + struct iommufd_fault *fault = hwpt->fault;
>> +
>
> why not directly using iommufd_fault as the fault_data?
The relationship among these structures is:
iommufd_hwpt -> iommu_domain
^
|
v
iommufd_fault
It appears preferable to hook the hwpt instead of iommufd_fault to an
iommu_domain structure.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists