On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group
> > > >> *iommu_group)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + struct vfio_group *group =
> > > >> vfio_group_get_from_iommu(iommu_group);
> > > >> + struct vfio_device *device;
> > > >
> > > > Check group for NULL.
> > >
> > > OK - FWIW in context this should only ever make sense to call with an
> > > iommu_group which has already been derived from a vfio_group, and I did
> > > initially consider a check with a WARN_ON(), but then decided that the
> > > unguarded dereference would be a sufficiently strong message. No problem
> > > with bringing that back to make it more defensive if that's what you
> > > prefer.
> >
> > A while down the road, that's a bit too much implicit knowledge of the
> > intent and single purpose of this function just to simply avoid a test.
>
> I think we should just pass the 'struct vfio_group *' into the
> attach_group op and have this API take that type in and forget the
> vfio_group_get_from_iommu().
That's essentially what I'm suggesting, the vfio_group is passed as an
opaque pointer which type1 can use for a
vfio_group_for_each_vfio_device() type call. Thanks,
Alex
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
