Re: [PATCH v3 03/15] iommu: Always register bus notifiers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2022-07-06 02:53, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2022/7/6 01:08, Robin Murphy wrote:
  /*
   * Use a function instead of an array here because the domain-type is a
   * bit-field, so an array would waste memory.
@@ -152,6 +172,10 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void)
              (iommu_cmd_line & IOMMU_CMD_LINE_STRICT) ?
                  "(set via kernel command line)" : "");
+    /* If the system is so broken that this fails, it will WARN anyway */

Can you please elaborate a bit on this? iommu_bus_init() still return
errors.

Indeed, it's commenting on the fact that we don't try to clean up or propagate an error value further even if it did ever manage to return one. I feared that if I strip the error handling out of iommu_bus_init() itself on the same reasoning, we'll just get constant patches from the static checker brigade trying to add it back, so it seemed like the neatest compromise to keep that decision where it's obviously in an early initcall, rather than in the helper function which can be viewed out of context. However, I'm happy to either expand this comment or go the whole way and make iommu_bus_init() return void if you think it's worthwhile.

Cheers,
Robin.


+    for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iommu_buses); i++)
+        iommu_bus_init(iommu_buses[i]);
+
      return 0;

Best regards,
baolu



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux