On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote: > yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback > and pasid_array update is under the group->lock, so update it should be > fine to adjust the order to update pasid_array after set_dev_pasid returns. Yes, it makes some sense But, also I would like it very much if we just have the core pass in the actual old domain as a an addition function argument. I think we have some small mistakes in multi-device group error unwinding for remove because the global xarray can't isn't actually going to be correct in all scenarios. Jason
