On 2024/1/16 1:22, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:28PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:+static int intel_nested_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, + struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid) +{ + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev); + struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain); + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu; + struct dev_pasid_info *dev_pasid; + unsigned long flags; + int ret = 0; + + if (!pasid_supported(iommu)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + if (iommu->agaw < dmar_domain->s2_domain->agaw) + return -EINVAL; + + ret = prepare_domain_attach_device(&dmar_domain->s2_domain->domain, dev); + if (ret) + return ret; + + dev_pasid = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev_pasid), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!dev_pasid) + return -ENOMEM; + + ret = domain_attach_iommu(dmar_domain, iommu); + if (ret) + goto err_free; + + ret = intel_pasid_setup_nested(iommu, dev, pasid, dmar_domain); + if (ret) + goto err_detach_iommu; + + dev_pasid->dev = dev; + dev_pasid->pasid = pasid; + spin_lock_irqsave(&dmar_domain->lock, flags); + list_add(&dev_pasid->link_domain, &dmar_domain->dev_pasids); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dmar_domain->lock, flags); + + return 0; +err_detach_iommu: + domain_detach_iommu(dmar_domain, iommu); +err_free: + kfree(dev_pasid); + return ret; +}This seems alot longer than I'd think it should be, why isn't it exactly the same code as the other set_dev_pasid's?
Yes. It should be. The only difference is how to configure the pasid entry. Best regards, baolu
