From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 07:52:37 -0500 From: okaya@codeaurora.org To: Jean-Philippe Brucker Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/37] iommu: Add a page fault handler In-Reply-To: <430e9754-4cf7-0aa8-7899-fc13e6a2e079@arm.com> References: <20180212183352.22730-1-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <20180212183352.22730-8-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <77afa195-4842-a112-eba5-409b861b5315@codeaurora.org> <430e9754-4cf7-0aa8-7899-fc13e6a2e079@arm.com> Message-ID: <93dc46c9f4c9f5f6f9dc50c26333398b@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , xieyisheng1@huawei.com, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, xuzaibo@huawei.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, Will Deacon , yi.l.liu@intel.com, Lorenzo Pieralisi , ashok.raj@intel.com, tn@semihalf.com, joro@8bytes.org, robdclark@gmail.com, bharatku@xilinx.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , rfranz@cavium.com, lenb@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, liubo95@huawei.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, jcrouse@codeaurora.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, Sudeep Holla , linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org, Robin Murphy , christian.koenig@amd.com, nwatters@codeaurora.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+bjorn=helgaas.com@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On 2018-03-06 05:46, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 05/03/18 21:53, Sinan Kaya wrote: >> On 2/12/2018 1:33 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>> +static struct workqueue_struct *iommu_fault_queue; >> >> Is there anyway we can make this fault queue per struct device? >> Since this is common code, I think it needs some care. > > I don't think it's better, the workqueue struct seems large. Maybe > having > one wq per IOMMU is a good compromise? Yes, one per iommu sounds reasonable. As said in my other reply for this > patch, doing so isn't completely straightforward. I'll consider adding > an > iommu pointer to the iommu_param struct attached to each device. > > Thanks, > Jean > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel