Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Print better events records

[Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@google.com>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:53:50AM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:50:09PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 09:26:36PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:22:13AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:10:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 09:55:14AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > > > dev_name()'s result can't leave the lock either, at least not with out
> > > > > > > some refcounting on the struct device.
> > > 
> > > Agreed, I missed that! Maybe we can avoid reading the master name in the
> > > `arm_smmu_get_evt_info` and move it within the `arm_smmu_handle_evt`
> > > under proper locking? Since the event won't be dumped before it's
> > > handled, we can avoid locking at two places for doing the same thing?
> > 
> > Yea, just move the master_name closer to the locker, and put the
> > dump() inside the locker too, either of which happens in handle().
> > 
> 
> Ack, I'll read and dump the event within the lock acquired in
> `arm_smmu_handle_evt` in the next version, while keeping `master_name` a
> local variable.

On a second thought, it feels weird to pass a separate "master_name" arg
to the `arm_smmu_dump_event`. Let's keep the master_name within
`arm_smmu_event` and read it within the locks.

> 
> > Thanks
> > Nicolin
> 

Thanks,
Pranjal