> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:53 PM > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:48:23PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:30 PM > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:35:25AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > > > > > > > And the commit message is sort of out of sync with the patch, more > like: > > > > > > > > > > vfio: Pass the pt_id as an argument to vfio_iommufd_bind() > > > > > > > > > > To support binding the cdev the pt_id must come from userspace > > > instead > > > > > of being forced to the compat_ioas_id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it. not only pt_id, also dev_id. 😊 > > > > > > Maybe dev_id should be read back from the iommufd_device pointer in > > > the vfio_device. It is trivially stored in that memory already > > > > Yes. this somehow gives me a doubt. Why iommufd_device_bind() > returns > > both iommufd_device pointer and the id back as id is already stored in the > > iommufd_device. Is it? > > Yes, it was done this way to avoid another API to get the ID, but > perhaps that is more conveient for vfio anyhow. We could get rid of > the id return pointer as well Ok, maybe I can have a small patch to add API like iommufd_device_id() to get devid, and get rid of the id return pointer as part of this series or an independent prerequisite patch for this series. Regards, Yi Liu
