Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] iommu: Introduce a new iommu_group_replace_domain() API

[Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:33:44AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 2023/2/3 3:14, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:21:20PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2023/2/2 15:05, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * iommu_group_replace_domain - replace the domain that a group is attached to
> > > > + * @new_domain: new IOMMU domain to replace with
> > > > + * @group: IOMMU group that will be attached to the new domain
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This API allows the group to switch domains without being forced to go to
> > > > + * the blocking domain in-between.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * If the attached domain is a core domain (e.g. a default_domain), it will act
> > > > + * just like the iommu_attach_group().
> > > I am not following above two lines. Why and how could iommufd set a
> > > core domain to an iommu_group?
> > Perhaps this isn't the best narrative. What it's supposed to say
> > is that this function acts as an iommu_attach_group() call if the
> > device is "detached", yet we have changed the semantics about the
> > word "detach". So, what should the correct way to write such a
> > note?
> 
> How could this interface be used as detaching a domain from a group?
> Even it could be used, doesn't it act as an iommu_detach_group()?

No. I didn't say that. It doesn't act as detach(), but attach()
when a device is already "detached".

The original statement is saying, "if the attached domain is a
core domain", i.e. the device is detach()-ed, "it will act just
like the iommu_attach_group()".

Thanks
Nic