hi jean,
On 2017/11/29 23:01, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 29/11/17 06:15, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On 2017/10/6 21:31, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> - if (domain->ext_handler) {
>>> + if (domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC) {
>>> + fau
Hello,
On 29/11/17 06:15, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On 2017/10/6 21:31, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> -if (domain->ext_handler) {
>> +if (domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC) {
>> +fault->flags |= IOMMU_FAULT_ATOMIC;
>
> Why remove the condition of do
Hi Jean,
On 2017/10/6 21:31, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> - if (domain->ext_handler) {
> + if (domain->handler_flags & IOMMU_FAULT_HANDLER_ATOMIC) {
> + fault->flags |= IOMMU_FAULT_ATOMIC;
Why remove the condition of domain->ext_handler? should it be much better like:
if (
Allow device driver to register their fault handler at various stages of
the handling path, by adding flags to iommu_set_ext_fault_handler. Since
we now have a fault workqueue, it is quite easy to call their handler from
thread context instead of IRQ handler.
A driver can request to be called both
