Hello,
On 29/11/17 06:15, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 2017/10/6 21:31, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> - if (domain->ext_handler) {
>> + if (domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC) {
>> + fault->flags |= IOMMU_FAULT_ATOMIC;
>
> Why remove the condition of domain->ext_handler? should it be much better like:
> if ((domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC) && domain->ext_handler)
>
> If domain->ext_handler is NULL, and (domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC)
> is true. It will oops, right?
I removed the check because ext_handler shouldn't be NULL if handler_flags
has a bit set (as per iommu_set_ext_fault_handler). But you're right that
this is fragile, and I overlooked the case where users could call
set_ext_fault_handler to clear the fault handler.
(Note that this ext_handler will most likely be replaced by the fault
infrastructure that Jacob is working on:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10063385/ to which we should add the
atomic/blocking flags)
Thanks,
Jean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
