hi jean,
On 2017/11/29 23:01, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> 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)
>
Get it, thanks for your explanation.
Thanks
Yisheng Xie
> 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
