From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org> Cc: "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, "vasant.hegde@amd.com" <vasant.hegde@amd.com>, "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>, "gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>, "schnelle@linux.ibm.com" <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>, "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device registration Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:58:18 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <569e97f6-f78c-1eae-1023-2d5e2df2d40f@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276ECD0D25C09D6A3686A3B8C839@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> On 2022-07-07 07:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:08 AM >> >> @@ -202,12 +210,32 @@ int iommu_device_register(struct iommu_device >> *iommu, >> spin_lock(&iommu_device_lock); >> list_add_tail(&iommu->list, &iommu_device_list); >> spin_unlock(&iommu_device_lock); >> + >> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iommu_buses); i++) { >> + struct bus_type *bus = iommu_buses[i]; >> + int err; >> + >> + if (bus->iommu_ops && bus->iommu_ops != ops) { >> + err = -EBUSY; >> + } else { >> + bus->iommu_ops = ops; >> + err = bus_iommu_probe(bus); >> + } >> + if (err) { >> + iommu_device_unregister(iommu); >> + return err; >> + } >> + } >> + > > Probably move above into a new function bus_iommu_probe_all(): > > /* probe all buses for devices associated with this iommu */ > err = bus_iommu_probe_all(); > if (err) { > iommu_device_unregister(iommu); > return err; > } > > Just my personal preference on leaving logic in iommu_device_register() > more relevant to the iommu instance itself. On reflection I think it makes sense to pull the iommu_device_unregister() out of the loop anyway - I think that's really a left-over from between v1 and v2 when that error case briefly jumped to another cleanup loop, before I realised it was actually trivial for iommu_device_unregister() to clean up for itself. However I now see I've also missed another opportunity, and the -EBUSY case should be hoisted out of the loop as well, since checking iommu_buses[0] is sufficient. Then it's hopefully much clearer that once the bus ops go away we'll be left with just a single extra line for the loop, as in iommu_device_unregister(). Does that sound reasonable? > Apart from that: > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> Thanks! (and for the others as well) Robin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org> Cc: "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, "vasant.hegde@amd.com" <vasant.hegde@amd.com>, "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>, "gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>, "schnelle@linux.ibm.com" <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>, "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device registration Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:58:18 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <569e97f6-f78c-1eae-1023-2d5e2df2d40f@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276ECD0D25C09D6A3686A3B8C839@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> On 2022-07-07 07:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:08 AM >> >> @@ -202,12 +210,32 @@ int iommu_device_register(struct iommu_device >> *iommu, >> spin_lock(&iommu_device_lock); >> list_add_tail(&iommu->list, &iommu_device_list); >> spin_unlock(&iommu_device_lock); >> + >> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iommu_buses); i++) { >> + struct bus_type *bus = iommu_buses[i]; >> + int err; >> + >> + if (bus->iommu_ops && bus->iommu_ops != ops) { >> + err = -EBUSY; >> + } else { >> + bus->iommu_ops = ops; >> + err = bus_iommu_probe(bus); >> + } >> + if (err) { >> + iommu_device_unregister(iommu); >> + return err; >> + } >> + } >> + > > Probably move above into a new function bus_iommu_probe_all(): > > /* probe all buses for devices associated with this iommu */ > err = bus_iommu_probe_all(); > if (err) { > iommu_device_unregister(iommu); > return err; > } > > Just my personal preference on leaving logic in iommu_device_register() > more relevant to the iommu instance itself. On reflection I think it makes sense to pull the iommu_device_unregister() out of the loop anyway - I think that's really a left-over from between v1 and v2 when that error case briefly jumped to another cleanup loop, before I realised it was actually trivial for iommu_device_unregister() to clean up for itself. However I now see I've also missed another opportunity, and the -EBUSY case should be hoisted out of the loop as well, since checking iommu_buses[0] is sufficient. Then it's hopefully much clearer that once the bus ops go away we'll be left with just a single extra line for the loop, as in iommu_device_unregister(). Does that sound reasonable? > Apart from that: > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com> Thanks! (and for the others as well) Robin. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-07 10:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-07-05 17:08 [PATCH v3 00/15] iommu: Retire bus_set_iommu() Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] iommu/vt-d: Handle race between registration and device probe Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-06 1:39 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-06 1:39 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-07 6:51 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 6:51 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-08 7:52 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-08 7:52 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-15 12:37 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-15 12:37 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-19 0:06 ` Lu Baolu 2022-07-19 0:06 ` Lu Baolu 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] iommu/amd: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] iommu: Always register bus notifiers Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-06 1:53 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-06 1:53 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-06 13:43 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-06 13:43 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 0:20 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-07 0:20 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-07 6:34 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 6:34 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 9:38 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 9:38 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 6:31 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 6:31 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 9:58 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 9:58 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-08 5:50 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-08 5:50 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device registration Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-06 2:35 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-06 2:35 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-06 14:37 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-06 14:37 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 1:19 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-07 1:19 ` Baolu Lu 2022-07-07 6:51 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 6:51 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 10:58 ` Robin Murphy [this message] 2022-07-07 10:58 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-08 5:52 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-08 5:52 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] iommu/amd: Clean up bus_set_iommu() Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] iommu/arm-smmu: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] iommu/dart: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] iommu/exynos: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] iommu/mtk: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] iommu/omap: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] iommu/tegra-smmu: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] iommu/virtio: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] iommu: " Robin Murphy 2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 7:45 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 7:45 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-07 12:49 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-07 12:49 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-07 12:54 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-07 12:54 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-07 14:58 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 14:58 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-07 16:42 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-07 16:42 ` Matthew Rosato 2022-07-08 8:14 ` [PATCH] iommu/s390: fail probe for non-pci device Niklas Schnelle 2022-07-08 8:14 ` Niklas Schnelle 2022-07-08 8:17 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] iommu: Retire bus_set_iommu() Niklas Schnelle 2022-07-08 8:17 ` Niklas Schnelle 2022-07-15 13:12 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-15 13:12 ` Robin Murphy 2022-07-21 7:17 ` Tian, Kevin 2022-07-21 7:17 ` Tian, Kevin
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=569e97f6-f78c-1eae-1023-2d5e2df2d40f@arm.com \ --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \ --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \ --cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \ --cc=joro@8bytes.org \ --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \ --cc=vasant.hegde@amd.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.