On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 13:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-03-17 16:43:39 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote: > > If that's worth the lock dropping then fine (though why does only > > one > > of the two allocations use GFP_KERNEL?), but it doesn't need to be > > a > > That was a mistake, I planned to keep both as GFP_KERNEL. > > > raw lock if the non-allocating users are separated. Keeping them > > separate will also preserve the WARNs if we somehow end up in an > > atomic > > context with no table (versus relying on atomic sleep debugging > > that > > may or may not be enabled), and make the code easier to understand > > by > > being explicit about which functions can be used from RT-atomic > > context. > > That separated part is okay. We could keep it. However, I am not sure > if > looking at the table irq_lookup_table[devid] without the lock is > okay. > The pointer is assigned without DTE entry/iommu-flush to be > completed. > This does not look "okay".
Those callers are getting the devid from an irq_2_irte struct, which was set up in irq_remapping_alloc() after get/alloc_irq_table() is completed. -Scott _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
