From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
kevin.tian@intel.com, joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] iommu: Sort out domain user data
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:32:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250307153217.GS354511@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9a6c611-2a19-4830-964d-44b711fffb08@arm.com>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:49:36AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> TBH at this point I view the fault_handler stuff as a legacy interface which
> we don't really want to encourage use of anyway - it's already proven not to
> be great for any true fault handling since many drivers can only call
> report_iommu_fault() in IRQ context. If some new case does come up in future
> where this mutual exclusion gets in the way, I would say that's the point
> where we then look at reworking the whole thing into a dedicated "fault
> notifier" mechanism instead, which could then logically be orthogonal to the
> IOVA-space-owner cookie.
I was under the impression we would go forward with the PRI focused
interface we already have:
int (*iopf_handler)(struct iopf_group *group);
And this olld iommu_fault_handler_t is just because nobody wanted to
go in any update the old drivers and DRM to use the new scheme?
Is there something fundamental that would prevent iommu drivers from
using the new reporting path?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-07 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-06 21:00 [PATCH v4 0/3] iommu: Clean up cookie and sw_msi in struct iommu_domain Nicolin Chen
2025-03-06 21:00 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] iommu: Sort out domain user data Nicolin Chen
2025-03-07 2:28 ` Baolu Lu
2025-03-07 5:57 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-03-07 7:03 ` Baolu Lu
2025-03-07 11:49 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-07 15:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-03-17 19:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-06 21:00 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] iommufd: Move iommufd_sw_msi and related functions to driver.c Nicolin Chen
2025-03-12 7:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2025-03-17 20:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-06 21:00 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] iommu: Drop sw_msi from iommu_domain Nicolin Chen
2025-03-17 20:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-24 16:25 ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-03-24 16:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-24 16:55 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-03-24 17:05 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-03-24 17:07 ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-03-24 20:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-24 20:43 ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-03-24 21:38 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-03-24 22:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-24 22:45 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-03-17 20:21 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] iommu: Clean up cookie and sw_msi in struct iommu_domain Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-20 23:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250307153217.GS354511@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox