Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix vIOMMU reset order

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 11:10, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:21:51PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> > This is a follow-up of Peter's attempt to fix the fact that
> > vIOMMUs are likely to be reset before the device they protect:
> >
> > [PATCH 0/4] intel_iommu: Reset vIOMMU after all the rest of devices
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240117091559.144730-1-peterx@redhat.com/
> >
> > This is especially observed with virtio devices when a qmp system_reset
> > command is sent but also with VFIO devices.
> >
> > This series puts the vIOMMU reset in the 3-phase exit callback.
> >
> > This scheme was tested successful with virtio-devices and some
> > VFIO devices. Nevertheless not all the topologies have been
> > tested yet.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Eric
>
>
>
> Looks good.
>
>
> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>
> How should this be merged?
> I supposed I can merge the 1st three and the other
> two by the respective maintainers?
> I don't think there's a dependency here, right?

If we're happy with the design of the series I think it
would be simpler to take the whole thing through one
tree, rather than split it up. I had a question on the
smmu patch which is mostly about clarifying what the
issue is that we're running into, but in principle
I'm happy for you to take that patch as well.

-- PMM