>-----Original Message----- >From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Two enhancements to >iommu_at[de]tach_device_pasid() > >On 2024/3/29 10:12, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] Two enhancements to >>> iommu_at[de]tach_device_pasid() >>> >>> There are minor mistakes in the iommu set_dev_pasid() and >>> remove_dev_pasid() >>> paths. The set_dev_pasid() path updates the group->pasid_array first, >and >>> then call into remove_dev_pasid() in error handling when there are >devices >>> within the group that failed to set_dev_pasid. >> >> Not related to this patch, just curious in which cases some of the devices >> In same group failed to set_dev_pasid while others succeed? >There are multiple failure reasons. Given to the fact of some devices have >already succeeded, the most typical error may be no memory. Not sure >about >other reasons. Oh, the no memory case, clear, thanks Yi. BRs. Zhenzhong
