On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:35:40AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > 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... Yeah, that is one path. Do we have anyone that uses this that doesn't want the WQ? (actually who even uses this besides SVA?) Jason
