Hi Leon, On 23/09/2026 17:52, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Matt Evans wrote: >> >> So the worry was that the VFIO DMABUF's temp/perm state could be >> misconstrued as an implication/guarantee about the future availability >> of that DMABUF to importers, OK. And we want the existing move(false) >> behaviour still, for dynamic importers that treat it as a move. > > This is not a bug; the behavior is intentional.
I wasn't meaning to imply that! :) > During review of the initial> versions of the revoke mechanism, it was pointed out that > `move_notify == invalidate_mappings == revoke`. The initial versions > introduced a separate function call for revocation, which we abandon in > favour of move semantics. That makes sense, and it's good to know that background. Thank you, Matt
