On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:34:14PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 03:12:33PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 08:14:19PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:58:03PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > + iopt_for_each_contig_area(&iter, area, iopt, iova, last_iova) {
> > > > + unsigned long last = min(last_iova,
> > > > iopt_area_last_iova(area));
> > > > + unsigned long last_index =
> > > > iopt_area_iova_to_index(area, last);
> > > > + unsigned long index =
> > > > + iopt_area_iova_to_index(area, iter.cur_iova);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (area->prevent_access ||
> > >
> > > Nit:
> > > Shouldn't we return -EBUSY or something if (area->prevent_access == 1) ?
> > > IIUC, this just means that an unmap attempt is in progress, hence avoid
> > > accessing the area.
> >
> > Maybe. But this is what it was. So we need a different patch to
> > change that.
>
> Rereading the code. The prevent_access is set by an unmap(), which
> means there shouldn't be any pin() and rw() as the caller should
> finish unmap() first.
>
> In the newer use case of vCMDQ, it's similar. If VMM is unmapping
> the stage-2 mapping, it shouldn't try to allocate a vCMDQ.
>
> -EBUSY makes some sense, but -EINVAL could still stand.
>
> So, I am leaving it as is, since this patch is just about moving
> the functions for sharing.
Ack. I don't have a strong preference too. This should be fine, we can
re-visit this if needed in the future.
Reviewed-by: Pranjal Shrivastava <pr...@google.com>
>
> Nicolin
Thanks!
