On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:51:10AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > Ok that makes sense thanks for the explanation. So yes my assessment is > still that in this situation the IOTLB flush is architected to return > an error that we can ignore. Not the most elegant I admit but at least > it's simple. Alternatively I guess we could use call_rcu() to do the > zpci_unregister_ioat() but I'm not sure how to then make sure that a > subsequent zpci_register_ioat() only happens after that without adding > too much more logic. This won't work either as the domain could have been freed before the call_rcu() happens, the domain needs to be detached synchronously Jason
