On 2023/12/22 19:59, Liu, Yi L wrote:
On Dec 22, 2023, at 15:12, Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 3:02 PM
On Dec 22, 2023, at 14:47, Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Yang, Weijiang <weijiang.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 11:56 AM
+
+ xa_for_each(&domain->iommu_array, i, info) {
+ nested_flush_pasid_iotlb(info->iommu, domain, addr,
npages, 0);
+
+ if (domain->has_iotlb_device)
+ continue;
Shouldn't this be if (!domain->has_iotlb_device)?
yes that is wrong.
actually it's weird to put domain check in a loop of domain->iommu_array.
that check along with devtlb flush should be done out of that loop.
Maybe adding a bool, set it out of the loop, check the bool in the loop.
the point is that dev iotlb doesn't rely on info->iommu:
nested_flush_dev_iotlb(domain, addr, mask, &fault);
then why do it in the loop of info->iommu?
yes. It should have another device loop instead.
let me move the device tlb related code out of the info->iommu loop.
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
