Re: [RFC v16 1/9] iommu: Introduce attach/detach_pasid_table API

Eric Auger
2021-12-08T07:33:41Z

Hi Baolu,

On 12/8/21 3:44 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/7/21 6:22 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> On 12/6/21 11:48 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker<jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj<ashok.raj@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan<jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger<eric.auger@redhat.com>
>>> This Signed-of-by chain looks dubious, you are the author but the last
>>> one in the chain?
>> The 1st RFC in Aug 2018
>> (https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2018-August/032478.html)
>> said this was a generalization of Jacob's patch
>>
>>
>>    [PATCH v5 01/23] iommu: introduce bind_pasid_table API function
>>
>>
>>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2018-May/027647.html
>>
>> So indeed Jacob should be the author. I guess the multiple rebases got
>> this eventually replaced at some point, which is not an excuse. Please
>> forgive me for that.
>> Now the original patch already had this list of SoB so I don't know if I
>> shall simplify it.
>
> As we have decided to move the nested mode (dual stages) implementation
> onto the developing iommufd framework, what's the value of adding this
> into iommu core?

The iommu_uapi_attach_pasid_table uapi should disappear indeed as it is
is bound to be replaced by /dev/iommu fellow API.
However until I can rebase on /dev/iommu code I am obliged to keep it to
maintain this integration, hence the RFC.

Thanks

Eric
>
> Best regards,
> baolu
>