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

[Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

Hi Peter, Michael,


On 2/7/25 5:40 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 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.
Thank you for the swift review. I will respin to add some comments along
with the reset function and the relevance of exit phase + add more
details in the cover letter.

Thanks

Erc
>
> -- PMM
>