Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0771c28d-1b31-003e-7659-4f3f3cbf5546@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:40:56 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20230727054837.147050-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20230727054837.147050-9-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52769D22490BB09BB25E0C2E8C08A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZNKMz04uhzL9T7ya@ziepe.ca>
 <BN9PR11MB527629949E7D44BED080400C8C12A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527629949E7D44BED080400C8C12A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/8/9 8:02, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:43 AM
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:16:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Is there plan to introduce further error in the future? otherwise this should
>>> be void.
>>>
>>> btw the work queue is only for sva. If there is no other caller this can be
>>> just kept in iommu-sva.c. No need to create a helper.
>>
>> I think more than just SVA will need a work queue context to process
>> their faults.
>>
> 
> then this series needs more work. Currently the abstraction doesn't
> include workqueue in the common fault reporting layer.

Do you mind elaborate a bit here? workqueue is a basic infrastructure in
the fault handling framework, but it lets the consumers choose to use
it, or not to.

Best regards,
baolu