> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 6:52 PM > > On 2024/6/28 17:42, Baolu Lu wrote: > > On 2024/6/28 16:55, Yi Liu wrote: > >> Draining PRQ is needed before repurposing a PASID. It makes sense to > invoke > >> it in the intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(). > > > > Can you please elaborate on the value of this merge? > > > > The major reason is that the next patch would have multiple places that > need to destroy pasid entry and do prq drain. Wrap them would make life > easier I suppose. > > > Draining the PRQ is necessary when PRI is enabled on the device, and a > > page table is about to be removed from the PASID. This might occur in > > conjunction with tearing down a PASID entry, but it seems they are two > > distinct actions. > > Seems like mostly they have conjunction, while there is indeed one > exception in the intel_mm_release(). Given the above reason, do you have > any suggestion for it? > If we really have such need please don't add more boolean fields. Let's extend the existing one into a flag instead, for better readability.
