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

[Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>]

On 8/4/23 11:56 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:17 AM
>>
>> On 2023/8/3 16:08, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> 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