>-----Original Message-----
>From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 4:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow qi_submit_sync() to return
>the QI faults
>
>On 2023/12/26 14:15, Yi Liu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/12/26 12:13, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 12:03 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/12/22 12:23, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + fault &= DMA_FSTS_IQE | DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE;
>>>>>> + if (fault) {
>>>>>> + if (fsts)
>>>>>> + *fsts |= fault;
>>>>>
>>>>> do we expect the fault to be accumulated? otherwise it's clearer to
>>>>> just do direct assignment instead of asking for the caller to clear
>>>>> the variable before invocation.
>>>>
>>>> not quite get. do you mean the fault should not be cleared in the caller
>>>> side?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I meant:
>>>
>>> if (fsts)
>>> *fsts = fault;
>>>
>>> unless there is a reason to *OR* the original value.
>>
>> I guess no such a reason. :) let me modify it.
>
>hmmm, replied too soon. The qi_check_fault() would be called multiple
>times in one invalidation circle as qi_submit_sync() needs to see if any
>fault happened before the hw writes back QI_DONE to the wait descriptor.
>There can be ICE which may eventually result in ITE. So caller of
>qi_check_fault()
>would continue to wait for QI_DONE. So qi_check_fault() returns 0 to let
>qi_submit_sync() go on though ICE detected. If we use '*fsts = fault;',
>then ICE would be missed since the input fsts pointer is the same in
>one qi_submit_sync() call.
Is it necessary to return fault to user if qi_check_fault() return -EAGAIN and
a restart run succeeds?
Thanks
Zhenzhong
