>-----Original Message----- >From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Two enhancements to >iommu_at[de]tach_device_pasid() > >On 3/29/24 10:12 AM, 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? > >The failure cases could be checked in the set_dev_pasid implementation >of the individual iommu driver. For x86 platforms, which are PCI fabric- >based, there's no such case as PCI/PASID requires a singleton iommu >group. Clear, thanks Baolu. BRs. Zhenzhong
