> From: Liu, Yi L <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:51 PM > > @@ -2071,6 +2083,43 @@ TEST_F(iommufd_device_pasid, pasid_attach) > > IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DATA_SELFTEST, > &data, sizeof(data)); > > + if (variant->pasid) { > + uint32_t new_hwpt_id = 0; > + > + ASSERT_EQ(0, > + test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd, > + self->stdev_id, > + variant->pasid, > + self->hwpt_id, > + &result)); > + EXPECT_EQ(1, result); > + test_cmd_hwpt_alloc(self->device_id, self->ioas_id, > + 0, &new_hwpt_id); > + test_cmd_mock_domain_replace(self->stdev_id, > + new_hwpt_id); > + ASSERT_EQ(0, > + test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd, > + self->stdev_id, > + variant->pasid, > + new_hwpt_id, > + &result)); > + EXPECT_EQ(1, result); > + > + /* > + * Detach hwpt from variant->pasid, and check if the > + * variant->pasid has null domain > + */ > + test_cmd_pasid_detach(variant->pasid); > + ASSERT_EQ(0, > + test_cmd_pasid_check_domain(self->fd, > + self->stdev_id, > + variant->pasid, > + 0, &result)); > + EXPECT_EQ(1, result); > + > + test_ioctl_destroy(new_hwpt_id); > + } > +
I wonder whether above better reuses the device attach/replace cases given default_pasid is hidden inside iommufd_device. this pasid_attach case is more for testing user pasids on a iommufd_device which hasn't yet been supported by SIOV device?
