On 2023/10/10 16:30, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:51 PM
@@ -2071,6 +2083,43 @@ TEST_F(iommufd_device_pasid, pasid_attach)
IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DATA_SELFTEST,
&data, sizeof(data));
+ if (variant->pasid) {
+ uint32_t new_hwpt_id = 0;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(0,
+ test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd,
+ self->stdev_id,
+ variant->pasid,
+ self->hwpt_id,
+ &result));
+ EXPECT_EQ(1, result);
+ test_cmd_hwpt_alloc(self->device_id, self->ioas_id,
+ 0, &new_hwpt_id);
+ test_cmd_mock_domain_replace(self->stdev_id,
+ new_hwpt_id);
+ ASSERT_EQ(0,
+ test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd,
+ self->stdev_id,
+ variant->pasid,
+ new_hwpt_id,
+ &result));
+ EXPECT_EQ(1, result);
+
+ /*
+ * Detach hwpt from variant->pasid, and check if the
+ * variant->pasid has null domain
+ */
+ test_cmd_pasid_detach(variant->pasid);
+ ASSERT_EQ(0,
+ test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd,
+ self->stdev_id,
+ variant->pasid,
+ 0, &result));
+ EXPECT_EQ(1, result);
+
+ test_ioctl_destroy(new_hwpt_id);
+ }
+
I wonder whether above better reuses the device attach/replace cases
given default_pasid is hidden inside iommufd_device. this pasid_attach
case is more for testing user pasids on a iommufd_device which hasn't
yet been supported by SIOV device?
perhaps the way how the above code checks the attached domain misled you.
Actually, this is still testing the siov default_pasid. In the variant
setup, the default_pasid is passed to the testing driver when creating
the stdev. That's why the replace test does not require a pasid.
maybe I can let have a new selftest op to check attached domain for a given
stdev instead of reusing test_cmd_pasid_check_domain().
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
