> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:41 PM > > On 2023/8/9 8:02, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:43 AM > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:16:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> > >>> Is there plan to introduce further error in the future? otherwise this > should > >>> be void. > >>> > >>> btw the work queue is only for sva. If there is no other caller this can be > >>> just kept in iommu-sva.c. No need to create a helper. > >> > >> I think more than just SVA will need a work queue context to process > >> their faults. > >> > > > > then this series needs more work. Currently the abstraction doesn't > > include workqueue in the common fault reporting layer. > > Do you mind elaborate a bit here? workqueue is a basic infrastructure in > the fault handling framework, but it lets the consumers choose to use > it, or not to. > My understanding of Jason's comment was to make the workqueue the default path instead of being opted by the consumer.. that is my 1st impression but might be wrong...
