On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:41:52PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 01:02:41AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > @@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ static int iommufd_group_setup_msi(struct iommufd_group
> > *igroup,
> > list_for_each_entry(cur, &ictx->sw_msi_list, sw_msi_item) {
> > int rc;
> >
> > - if (cur->sw_msi_start != igroup->sw_msi_start ||
> > - !test_bit(cur->id, igroup->required_sw_msi.bitmap))
> > + if (cur->sw_msi_start != idev->sw_msi_start ||
> > + !test_bit(cur->id, idev->igroup->required_sw_msi.bitmap))
> > continue;
>
> So we end up creating seperate sw_msi_list items with unique IDs for
> every sw_msi_start?
>
> That indeed might work well, I will try to check it and think about
> this harder.
The sw_msi_list is still per-ictx, so there won't be items/ids
that overlap with their sw_msi windows, right?
Then, the per-HWPT bitmap could still protect the iommu_map(),
as the design wanted to? No?
Nicolin
