Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault_param static

[Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>]

On 2023/8/3 16:08, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 1:49 PM
>>
>> @@ -4630,7 +4621,6 @@ static int intel_iommu_disable_iopf(struct device
>> *dev)
>>   	 * fault handler and removing device from iopf queue should never
>>   	 * fail.
>>   	 */
>> -	WARN_ON(iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(dev));
>>   	WARN_ON(iopf_queue_remove_device(iommu->iopf_queue, dev));
> 
> the comment should be updated too.

Ack.

> 
>>
>>   	mutex_init(&param->lock);
>> +	param->fault_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param->fault_param),
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!param->fault_param) {
>> +		kfree(param);
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
>> +	mutex_init(&param->fault_param->lock);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&param->fault_param->faults);
> 
> let's also move 'partial' from struct iopf_device_param into struct
> iommu_fault_param. That logic is not specific to sva.
> 
> meanwhile probably iopf_device_param can be renamed to
> iopf_sva_param since all the remaining fields are only used by
> the sva handler.
> 
> current naming (iommu_fault_param vs. iopf_device_param) is a
> bit confusing when reading related code.

My understanding is that iommu_fault_param is for all kinds of iommu
faults. Currently they probably include recoverable IO page faults or
unrecoverable DMA faults.

While, iopf_device_param is for the recoverable IO page faults. I agree
that this naming is not specific and even confusing. Perhaps renaming it
to something like iommu_iopf_param?

Best regards,
baolu