Hi Jason, On Mon, 10 May 2021 20:45:00 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:28:54PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote: > > > To satisfy your "give me a PASID for this RID" proposal, can we just use > > the RID's struct device as the token? Also add a type field to > > explicitly indicate global vs per-set(per-RID). i.e. > > You've got it backwards, the main behavior should be to allocate PASID > per RID. > Sure, we can make the local PASID as default. My point was that the ioasid_set infrastructure's opaque token can support RID-local allocation scheme. Anyway, this is a small detail as compared to uAPI. > The special behavior is to bundle a bunch of PASIDs into a grouping > and then say the PASID number space is shared between all the group > members. > > /dev/ioasid should create and own this grouping either implicitly or > explicitly. Jumping ahead to in-kernel APIs has missed the critical > step of defining the uAPI and all the behaviors together in a > completed RFC proposal. > Agreed, the requirements for kernel API should come from uAPI. > Jason Thanks, Jacob
