On 2024/9/12 21:04, Yi Liu wrote:
Draining PRQ is mostly conjuncted with pasid teardown, and with more callers coming, move it into it in the intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(). But there is scenario that only teardown pasid entry but no PRQ drain, so passing a flag to mark it.
Is it a reasonable case where PRI needs to be drained but the pasid entry won't be torn down? For example, could this happen when a PRI is disabled?
Signed-off-by: Yi Liu<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c | 13 +++++++++++-- drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.h | 8 +++++--- drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 3 ++- 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Thanks, baolu
