Hi All, On 6/28/2024 2:25 PM, Yi Liu wrote: > This splits the preparation works of the iommu and the Intel iommu driver > out from the iommufd pasid attach/replace series. [1] > > To support domain replacement, the definition of the set_dev_pasid op > needs to be enhanced. Meanwhile, the existing set_dev_pasid callbacks > should be extended as well to suit the new definition. IIUC this will remove PASID from old SVA domain and attaches to new SVA domain. (basically attaching same dev/PASID to different process). Is that the correct? So the expectation is replace existing PASID from PASID table only if old_domain is passed. Otherwise sev_dev_pasid() should throw an error right? -Vasant
