Hi Baolu, On 12/8/21 3:44 AM, Lu Baolu wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 12/7/21 6:22 PM, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 12/6/21 11:48 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker<jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj<ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan<jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger<eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> This Signed-of-by chain looks dubious, you are the author but the last >>> one in the chain? >> The 1st RFC in Aug 2018 >> (https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2018-August/032478.html) >> said this was a generalization of Jacob's patch >> >> >> [PATCH v5 01/23] iommu: introduce bind_pasid_table API function >> >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2018-May/027647.html >> >> So indeed Jacob should be the author. I guess the multiple rebases got >> this eventually replaced at some point, which is not an excuse. Please >> forgive me for that. >> Now the original patch already had this list of SoB so I don't know if I >> shall simplify it. > > As we have decided to move the nested mode (dual stages) implementation > onto the developing iommufd framework, what's the value of adding this > into iommu core? The iommu_uapi_attach_pasid_table uapi should disappear indeed as it is is bound to be replaced by /dev/iommu fellow API. However until I can rebase on /dev/iommu code I am obliged to keep it to maintain this integration, hence the RFC. Thanks Eric > > Best regards, > baolu >
