>On 11.12.2015 at 6:01pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrpte:
> >>> On 10.12.15 at 10:33, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> > @@ -167,10 +172,12 @@ static int queue_invalidate_wait(struct iommu
> *iommu,
> > start_time = NOW();
> > while ( poll_slot != QINVAL_STAT_DONE )
> > {
> > - if ( NOW() > (start_time + DMAR_OPERATION_TIMEOUT) )
> > + if ( NOW() > (start_time + IOMMU_QI_TIMEOUT) )
> > {
> > print_qi_regs(iommu);
> > - panic("queue invalidate wait descriptor was not
> executed");
> > + dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX,
> > + "Queue invalidate wait descriptor was
> timeout.\n");
> > + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > }
>
> I don't see such a change be valid without making sure callers actually honor
> errors. For example, no caller of iommu_flush_iec_{global,index}() cares to
> check. And not even your second patch addresses this (i.e.
> it's also not just bad patch ordering).
>
I check it again.
For iommu_flush_iec_{global,index}() are both call __iommu_flush_iec().
In my patch, I have check it in __iommu_flush_iec().
I think it does not need to check it in iommu_flush_iec_{global,index}() again.
Right?
-Quan
> If you require errors to be dealt with (and you do here), make use of
> __must_check all the way up the call trees.
>
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
