On 2022/5/12 20:03, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 07:59:41PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2022/5/12 19:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Baolu Lu
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03
On 2022/5/12 19:51, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:02:39AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
+ mutex_lock(>mutex);
+ domain = xa_load(>pasid_array, pasid);
+ if (domain && domain->type != type)
+ domain = NULL;
+ mutex_unlock(>mutex);
+
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 07:59:41PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/12 19:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > > From: Baolu Lu
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> > > > >
> >
On 2022/5/12 19:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Baolu Lu
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:02:39AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > + mutex_lock(>mutex);
> > > + domain = xa_load(>pasid_array, pasid);
> > > + if (domain && domain->type != type)
> > > + domain = NULL;
> > > + mutex_unlock(>mutex);
> > > +
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:17:08PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Baolu Lu
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> > >
> > > On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
On 2022/5/12 13:44, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Baolu Lu
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:17 PM
On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Baolu Lu
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:17 PM
>
> On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Baolu Lu
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> >>
> >> On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
>
On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Baolu Lu
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this in
something else.
Fair
> From: Baolu Lu
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
>
> On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
> >>> struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this in
> >>> something else.
> >> Fair enough. How
On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Assuming we leave room for multi-device groups this logic should just
be
group = iommu_group_get(dev);
if (!group)
return -ENODEV;
mutex_lock(>mutex);
domain = xa_load(>pasid_array, mm->pasid);
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 03:21:31PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/10 23:23, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:17:34PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * iommu_sva_bind_device() - Bind a process address space to a device
> > > + * @dev: the device
> > > + *
On 2022/5/10 23:23, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:17:34PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
+/**
+ * iommu_sva_bind_device() - Bind a process address space to a device
+ * @dev: the device
+ * @mm: the mm to bind, caller must hold a reference to mm_users
+ * @drvdata: opaque data
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:17:34PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> +/**
> + * iommu_sva_bind_device() - Bind a process address space to a device
> + * @dev: the device
> + * @mm: the mm to bind, caller must hold a reference to mm_users
> + * @drvdata: opaque data pointer to pass to bind callback
> + *
>
The existing iommu SVA interfaces are implemented by calling the SVA
specific iommu ops provided by the IOMMU drivers. There's no need for
any SVA specific ops in iommu_ops vector anymore as we can achieve
this through the generic attach/detach_dev_pasid domain ops.
This refactors the IOMMU SVA
15 matches
Mail list logo
