On 06/25/2014 03:27 PM, Wei Yang wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:12:34PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 06/25/2014 11:12 AM, Wei Yang wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:06:32PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> On 06/10/2014 11:56 AM, Wei Yang wrote: >>>>> Current iommu_table of a PE is a static field. This will have a problem when >>>>> iommu_free_table is called. >>>> >>>> What kind of problem? This table is per PE and PE is not going anywhere. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, for Bus PE, they will always sit in the system. When VF PE introduced, >>> they could be released on the fly. When they are released, so do the iommu >>> table for the PE. >> >> iommu_table is a part of PE struct. When PE is released, iommu_table will >> go with it as well. Why to make is a pointer? I would understand it if you >> added reference counting there but no - iommu_table's lifetime is equal to >> PE lifetime. >> > > Yes, iommu_talbe's life time equals to PE lifetime, so when releasing a PE we > need to release the iommu table. Currently, there is one function to release > the iommu table, iommu_free_table() which takes a pointer of the iommu_table > and release it. > > If the iommu table in PE is just a part of PE, it will have some problem to > release it with iommu_free_table(). That's why I make it a pointer in PE > structure. So you are saying that you want to release PE by one kfree() and release iommu_table by another kfree (embedded into iommu_free_table()). For me that means that PE and iommu_table have different lifetime. And I cannot find the exact place in this patchset where you call iommu_free_table(), what do I miss? -- Alexey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
