On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:51:21PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > I also thought about making this out_driver_error_code per HW. > > > Yet, an error can be either per array or per entry/quest. The > > > array-related error should be reported in the array structure > > > that is a core uAPI, v.s. the per-HW entry structure. Though > > > we could still report an array error in the entry structure > > > at the first entry (or indexed by "array->entry_num")? > > > > > > > why would there be an array error? array is just a software > > entity containing actual HW invalidation cmds. If there is > > any error with the array itself it should be reported via > > ioctl errno. > > User array reading is a software operation, but kernel array > reading is a hardware operation that can raise an error when > the memory location to the array is incorrect or so. Well, we shouldn't get into a situation like that.. By the time the HW got the address it should be valid. > With that being said, I think errno (-EIO) could do the job, > as you suggested too. Do we have any idea what HW failures can be generated by the commands this will execture? IIRC I don't remember seeing any smmu specific codes related to invalid invalidation? Everything is a valid input? Can vt-d fail single commands? What about AMD? > > Jason, how about your opinion? I didn't spot big issues > > except this one. Hope it can make into 6.8. Yes, lets try Jason
