Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jul 2022 18:11:13 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 04/12] iommu: Add attach/detach_dev_pasid iommu interface | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2022/7/25 15:46, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:14 PM >> >> On 2022/7/23 22:11, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> +void iommu_detach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, >> struct device *dev, >>>> + ioasid_t pasid) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct iommu_group *group = iommu_group_get(dev); >>>> + >>>> + mutex_lock(&group->mutex); >>>> + domain->ops->block_dev_pasid(domain, dev, pasid); >>> I still really this OP, it is nonsense to invoke 'block_dev_pasid' on >>> a domain, it should be on the iommu ops and it should not take in a >>> domain parameter. This is why I prefer we write it as >>> >>> domain->ops->set_dev_pasid(group->blocking_domain, dev, pasid); >>> >> >> I originally plan to refactor this after both Intel and ARM SMMUv3 >> drivers have real blocking domain supports. After revisiting this, it >> seems that the only difficulty is how to check whether a domain is a >> blocking domain. I am going to use below checking code: >> >> + /* >> + * Detach the domain if a blocking domain is set. Check the >> + * right domain type once the IOMMU driver supports a real >> + * blocking domain. >> + */ >> + if (!domain || domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED) { >> >> Does this work for you? >> > > Or you can call __iommu_group_alloc_blocking_domain() in the sva > path and then just check whether the domain is equal to > group->blocking_domain here.
Above check is in the IOMMU driver where group->blocking_domain is not viable. I ever thought about have something like
struct iommu_domain *iommu_group_blocking_domain(struct iommu_group *group)
to return group->blocking_domain. But it looks redundant.
Best regards, baolu
| |