> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:09 AM
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:06:20AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
> > > @@ -73,14 +77,22 @@ int iommufd_hw_pagetable_enforce_cc(struct
> > > iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt)
> > > */
> > > struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *
> > > iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct
> > > iommufd_ioas *ioas,
> > > - struct iommufd_device *idev, bool
> > > immediate_attach)
> > > + struct iommufd_device *idev,
> > > + struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *parent,
> > > + union iommu_domain_user_data *user_data,
> > > + bool immediate_attach)
> > > {
> > > const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(idev->dev);
> > > + struct iommu_domain *parent_domain = NULL;
> > > struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt;
> > > + bool type_unmanaged, type_nested;
> > > int rc;
> > >
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&ioas->mutex);
> > >
> > > + if ((user_data || parent) && !ops->domain_alloc_user)
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
> >
> > Do we allow specifying parent w/o user_data?
>
> I don't think so. Perhaps we should do a double check:
>
> + if (!!user_data ^ !!parent)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
I think we allow creating a s2 hwpt with user_data so it
should be:
if (parent && !user_data)
return ERR_PTR(-INVAL);
> > > @@ -99,6 +117,15 @@ iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc(struct
> iommufd_ctx
> > > *ictx, struct iommufd_ioas *ioas,
> > > goto out_abort;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* It must be either NESTED or UNMANAGED, depending on
> > > parent_domain */
> > > + type_nested = hwpt->domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED;
> > > + type_unmanaged = hwpt->domain->type ==
> > > IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED;
> >
> > no need of one-time used variables. Just put the conditions directly
> > in WARN_ON.
>
> It is to improve the readability. Otherwise, we'd have:
>
> if (WARN_ON((parent_domain &&
> hwpt->domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED) ||
> (!parent_domain &&
> hwpt->domain->type !=
> IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED)))
IMHO this is already very clear w/o defining additional variables. 😊
