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

[Baolu Lu]

On 8/4/23 11:56 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:17 AM
> >
> > On 2023/8/3 16:08, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 1:49 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    	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?
>
> or just iopf_param.

Okay.

Best regards,
baolu