On 2024/11/6 18:45, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2024/11/6 17:14, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/11/6 16:41, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2024/11/6 16:17, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:19 PM
+
+ dev_pasid = domain_add_dev_pasid(domain, dev, pasid);
+ if (IS_ERR(dev_pasid))
+ return PTR_ERR(dev_pasid);
+
+ ret = domain_setup_nested(iommu, dmar_domain, dev, pasid, old);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out_remove_dev_pasid;
+
+ domain_remove_dev_pasid(old, dev, pasid);
+
forgot one thing. Why not required to create a debugfs entry for
nested dev_pasid?
This debugfs node is only created for paging domain.
I think Kevin got one point. The debugfs is added when paging domain
is attached. How about the paging domains that is only used as nested
parent domain. We seem to lack a debugfs node for such paging domains.
Are you talking about the nested parent domain? It's also a paging
domain, hence a debugfs node will be created.
yes, nested parent domains. But as I mentioned, the debugfs node is created
only in the attach point so far. While the nested attach does not attach
the nested parent, it is subjected to the paging_domain_compatible()
check and contributes its pgd to act as SS page table in the pasid entry.
So it's missed though it should be in another patch to add it.
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
