On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:36:10PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 06:25:27PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:39:59AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > > index 99dd72998cb7f7..082274e8ba6a3d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
> > > @@ -1534,12 +1534,16 @@ void iommu_debugfs_setup(void);
> > > static inline void iommu_debugfs_setup(void) {}
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_MSI_IOMMU)
> > > int iommu_get_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain, dma_addr_t base);
> > > +void iommu_put_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain);
> > > #else /* CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA */
> > > static inline int iommu_get_msi_cookie(struct iommu_domain *domain, dma_addr_t base)
> > > {
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > Should we keep the -ENODEV here for !CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA?
>
> My feeling was if the system doesn't have an IRQ driver that needs
> MSI_IOMMU but does have a IOMMU driver that reports SW_MSI reserved
> regions then iommufd/vfio should not fail.
OK, I see. But we are also changing the behavior for the
!CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA configuration, in which case all other iommu
functions seem to return -ENODEV. And I assume we would need a
justification for such a change?
Perhaps, this can be explicit, just to keep the consistency:
/* NOP if IOMMU driver reports SW_MSI reserved regions */
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IOMMU_DMA) ? 0 : -ENODEV;
> I don't think it is realistic that we'd ever hit this return.
Yea, the only caller is VFIO, where there are quite a few IOMMU
functions calls before reaching to this one. So, it would have
been just returned with any -ENODEV prior.
Thanks
Nicolin
