Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <d6f6dbad-c341-fe6b-a430-7bbf4bcfba31@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 20:47:35 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, "Liu, Jingqi" <jingqi.liu@intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] iommu: Make iommu_queue_iopf() more generic
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20230914085638.17307-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20230914085638.17307-10-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <f20b9e78-3a63-ca3e-6c04-1d80ec857898@intel.com>
 <20230921233402.GC13795@ziepe.ca>
 <e7c773f6-969c-0097-1bca-24d276e8a8f6@linux.intel.com>
 <20230922124303.GE13795@ziepe.ca>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230922124303.GE13795@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/9/22 20:43, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:44:45AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> 
>>>>> @@ -112,6 +110,7 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, struct device *dev)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>     	int ret;
>>>>>     	struct iopf_group *group;
>>>>> +	struct iommu_domain *domain;
>>>>>     	struct iopf_fault *iopf, *next;
>>>>>     	struct iommu_fault_param *iopf_param;
>>>>>     	struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu;
>>>>> @@ -143,6 +142,19 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, struct device *dev)
>>>>>     		return 0;
>>>>>     	}
>>>>> +	if (fault->prm.flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID)
>>>>> +		domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid(dev, fault->prm.pasid, 0);
>>>>> +	else
>>>>> +		domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (!domain || !domain->iopf_handler) {
>>>> Does it need to check if 'domain' is error ?  Like below:
>>>>
>>>>            if (!domain || IS_ERR(domain) || !domain->iopf_handler)
>>> Urk, yes, but not like that
>>>
>>> The IF needs to be moved into the else block as each individual
>>> function has its own return convention.
>> iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid() returns an ERR_PTR only if the matching
>> domain type is specified (non-zero).
>>
>> Adding IS_ERR(domain) in the else block will make the code more
>> readable. Alternatively we can put a comment around above code to
>> explain that ERR_PTR is not a case here.
> You should check it because you'll probably get a static tool
> complaint otherwise

Okay, got you.

Best regards,
baolu