> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2024 4:56 PM
>
> @@ -806,5 +806,7 @@ void intel_iommu_debugfs_create_dev_pasid(struct
> dev_pasid_info *dev_pasid)
> /* Remove the device pasid debugfs directory. */
> void intel_iommu_debugfs_remove_dev_pasid(struct dev_pasid_info
> *dev_pasid)
> {
> + if (!dev_pasid->debugfs_dentry)
> + return;
> debugfs_remove_recursive(dev_pasid->debugfs_dentry);
debugfs_remove_recursive() already includes a check on null entry.
> -static void intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(struct device *dev, ioasid_t
> pasid,
> - struct iommu_domain *domain)
> +static void domain_undo_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
'domain_remove_dev_pasid'
> +static void intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(struct device *dev, ioasid_t
> pasid,
> + struct iommu_domain *domain)
> +{
> + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
> +
> intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, pasid, false, true);
> + if (domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY)
> + return;
> + domain_undo_dev_pasid(domain, dev, pasid);
this reverts the order by tearing down the pasid entry in the beginning.
but I cannot think of a problem here.
>
> - 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);
> + /* Undo the association between the old domain and pasid of a
> device */
> + if (old)
> + domain_undo_dev_pasid(old, dev, pasid);
the comment is useless
