On 2024/3/21 20:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 07:26:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
yes, the correct way is to undo what have been done before the fail
device. However, I somehow remember that pasid capability is only
available when the group is singleton. So iterate all devices o
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 07:26:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > yes, the correct way is to undo what have been done before the fail
> > device. However, I somehow remember that pasid capability is only
> > available when the group is singleton. So iterate all devices of the
> > devices just means one d
On 2024/3/21 14:16, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/3/20 20:38, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:29:39PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/3/19 00:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_p
On 2024/3/20 20:38, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:29:39PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/3/19 00:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
and pasid_array updat
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:29:39PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> On 2024/3/19 00:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> >
> > > yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
> > > and pasid_array update is under the group->lock
On 2024/3/19 00:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
and pasid_array update is under the group->lock, so update it should be
fine to adjust the order to update pasid_array aft
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
> and pasid_array update is under the group->lock, so update it should be
> fine to adjust the order to update pasid_array after set_dev_pasid returns.
Yes, it makes
On 2024/3/13 11:13, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2024/3/12 11:07, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/3/11 17:26, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 9:06 PM
On 2024/1/16 01:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
+int iommu_replace_device_pasi
On 2024/3/12 11:07, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2024/3/11 17:26, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 9:06 PM
On 2024/1/16 01:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
+int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+
On 2024/3/11 17:26, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 9:06 PM
On 2024/1/16 01:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
+int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+ struct dev
> From: Liu, Yi L
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 9:06 PM
>
> On 2024/1/16 01:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> >> +int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> >> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
On 2024/1/16 01:19, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
+int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+ struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
+{
+ struct iommu_group *group = dev->iommu_group;
+ stru
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> +int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
> +{
> + struct iommu_group *group = dev->iommu_group;
> + struct iommu_domain *old_domain;
> + int r
13 matches
Mail list logo
