[PATCH 09/37] iommu/fault: Let handler return a fault response
From: Jacob Pan <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-20 23:19:33
Also in:
kvm, linux-acpi, linux-devicetree, linux-iommu, linux-pci
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:33:24 +0000 Jean-Philippe Brucker [off-list ref] wrote:
+/**
+ * enum page_response_code - Return status of fault handlers,
telling the IOMMU
+ * driver how to proceed with the fault.
+ *
+ * @IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_HANDLED: Stop processing the fault, and do
not send a
+ * reply to the device.
+ * @IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_CONTINUE: Fault was not handled. Call the
next handler,
+ * or terminate.
+ * @IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_SUCCESS: Fault has been handled and the page
tables
+ * populated, retry the access. This is "Success" in PCI PRI.
+ * @IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_FAILURE: General error. Drop all subsequent
faults from
+ * this device if possible. This is "Response Failure" in PCI
PRI.
+ * @IOMMU_FAULT_STATUS_INVALID: Could not handle this fault, don't
retry the
+ * access. This is "Invalid Request" in PCI PRI.
+ */
+enum page_response_code {
+ IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_HANDLED = 0,
+ IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_CONTINUE,
+ IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS,
+ IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID,
+ IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE,
+};it seems to me two things are mixed here: 1. driver handler response status (HANDLED, CONTINUE) 2. PCI standard page response code (the rest) Can we leave them separate? then we don't have to convert this enum to/from PCI ATS page response code.
quoted hunk
+ /** * Generic page response information based on PCI ATS and PASID spec. * @addr: servicing page address@@ -202,12 +225,7 @@ enum page_response_type { struct page_response_msg { u64 addr; u32 pasid; - u32 resp_code:4; -#define IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS 0 -#define IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID 1 -#define IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_HANDLED 2 -#define IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE 0xF -
[Jacob Pan]