> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 2:21 PM
>
> On 2023/4/28 02:32, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:59:17 +0000
> > "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:39 PM
> >>>
> >>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 10:54 PM
> >>>> @@ -121,7 +128,8 @@ static void vfio_emulated_unmap(void *data,
> >>>> unsigned long iova,
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct vfio_device *vdev = data;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (vdev->ops->dma_unmap)
> >>>> + /* noiommu devices cannot do map/unmap */
> >>>> + if (vdev->noiommu && vdev->ops->dma_unmap)
> >>>> vdev->ops->dma_unmap(vdev, iova, length);
> >>>
> >>> Is it necessary? All mdev devices implementing @dma_unmap won't
> >>> set noiommu flag.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Yes, and all the devices set noiommu is not implementing
> @dma_unmap
> >> as far as I see. Maybe this noiommu check can be removed.
> >
> > Not to mention that the polarity of the noiommu test is backwards here!
> > This also seems to be the only performance path where noiommu is tested
> > and therefore I believe the only actual justification of the previous
> > patch.
>
> but this patch needs to use vfio_iommufd_emulated_bind() and
> vfio_iommufd_emulated_unbind() for the noiommu devices when binding
> to iommufd. So needs to check noiommu in the vfio_iommufd_bind()
> and vfio_iommu_unbind() as well.
>
You can continue to use vfio_device_is_noiommu() in this patch. It's not
big deal to drop it from this series and then add back in cdev series.
