[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250605151648.GD19710@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 12:16:48 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, corbet@....net, will@...nel.org,
bagasdotme@...il.com, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
shuah@...nel.org, jsnitsel@...hat.com, nathan@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, yi.l.liu@...el.com, mshavit@...gle.com,
praan@...gle.com, zhangzekun11@...wei.com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
mochs@...dia.com, alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com, vasant.hegde@....com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/29] iommufd: Abstract iopt_pin_pages and
iopt_unpin_pages helpers
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:11:07PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> I found the entire ictx would be locked by iommufd_access_create(),
> then the release fop couldn't even get invoked to destroy objects.
Yes, that makes sense..
It looks to me like you can safely leave ictx as NULL instead of
adding a flag? That would be nicer than leaving a unrefcounted
pointer floating around..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists