On 2024/8/16 01:49, Vasant Hegde wrote:
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?
In brief, yes. But it's not only for SVA domain. Remember that SIOVr1
extends the usage of PASID. At least on Intel side, a PASID may be
attached to paging domains.
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?
yes. If no old_domain passed in, then it is just a normal attachment. As
you are working on AMD iommu, it would be great if you can have a patch to
make the AMD set_dev_pasid() op suit this expectation. Then it can be
incorporated in this series. :)
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
