On 2024/9/12 21:22, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2024/9/12 21:04, Yi Liu wrote:
Draining PRQ is mostly conjuncted with pasid teardown, and with more
callers coming,
move it into it in the intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(). But there is
scenario that only
teardown pasid entry but no PRQ drain, so passing a flag to mark it.
Is it a reasonable case where PRI needs to be drained but the pasid
entry won't be torn down? For example, could this happen when a PRI is
disabled?
in concept, yes. But it seems no more than a debugging method in my
opinion. I cannot map it to a usage so far.
Signed-off-by: Yi Liu<yi.l....@intel.com>
---
drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 8 ++++----
drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c | 13 +++++++++++--
drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.h | 8 +++++---
drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 3 ++-
4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Thanks,
baolu
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
