On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 02:22:03PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 2022/5/12 01:00, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > Consolidate pasid programming into dev_set_pasid() then called by both > > > intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid() and intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid(), right? > > I was only suggesting that really dev_attach_pasid() op is misnamed, > > it should be called set_dev_pasid() and act like a set, not a paired > > attach/detach - same as the non-PASID ops. > > So, > > "set_dev_pasid(domain, device, pasid)" equals to dev_attach_pasid() > > and > > "set_dev_pasid(NULL, device, pasid)" equals to dev_detach_pasid()? > > do I understand it right? blocking_domain should be passed, not null Jason
