Hi Rob, Jean, On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 02:42:44PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > I'm in favour if splitting the reporting *somehow*.. the two > approaches that seemed sane are: > > 1) call fault handler from irq and having separate domain->resume() > called by the driver, potentially from a wq > 2) or having two fault callbacks, first called before wq and then > based on returned value, optionally 2nd callback called from wq > > The first seemed less intrusive to me, but I'm flexible. How about adding a flag to the fault-handler call-back that tells us whether it wants to sleep or not. If it wants, we call it from a wq, if not we call call it directly like we do today in the report_iommu_fault() function. In any case we call iommu_ops->resume() when set on completion of the fault-handler either from the workqueue or report_iommu_fault itself. Regards, Joerg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
