On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:00:53 +0000 Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:18 PM > > > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:45:00 +0000 > > Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > + iommu_get_group_resv_regions(iommu_group, &group_resv_regions); > > > + > > > + if (vfio_iommu_resv_conflict(iommu, &group_resv_regions)) { > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > + goto out_detach; > > > + } > > > + > > > /* Get a copy of the current iova list and work on it */ > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&iova_copy); > > > ret = vfio_iommu_get_iova_copy(iommu, &iova_copy); > > > @@ -1437,6 +1512,10 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void > > *iommu_data, > > > if (ret) > > > goto out_detach; > > > > > > + ret = vfio_iommu_resv_exclude(&iova_copy, &group_resv_regions); > > > + if (ret) > > > + goto out_detach; > > > + > > > resv_msi = vfio_iommu_has_sw_msi(iommu_group, &resv_msi_base); > > > > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list); > > > @@ -1497,6 +1576,9 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void > > *iommu_data, > > > /* Delete the old one and insert new iova list */ > > > vfio_iommu_insert_iova_copy(iommu, &iova_copy); > > > > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(resv, resv_next, &group_resv_regions, list) > > > + kfree(resv); > > > > list_del() here and below, also this can be done after the mutex unlock. > > Ok. I thought that as the reserved regions are local to this function, > list_del() is > not required. Same for the iova_copy in the first patch as well(which I > missed to > comment there). What you have works (afaik), it just seems sloppy to me to have free'd entries in the list, even as the destructor, as this is not a performance critical path. Is this more common elsewhere in the kernel than I suspect? Thanks, Alex
