Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:35:04 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] iommu: Introduce a new iommu_group_replace_domain() API | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2023/2/3 9:41, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:33:44AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: >> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >> >> >> On 2023/2/3 3:14, Nicolin Chen wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:21:20PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote: >>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2023/2/2 15:05, Nicolin Chen wrote: >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * iommu_group_replace_domain - replace the domain that a group is attached to >>>>> + * @new_domain: new IOMMU domain to replace with >>>>> + * @group: IOMMU group that will be attached to the new domain >>>>> + * >>>>> + * This API allows the group to switch domains without being forced to go to >>>>> + * the blocking domain in-between. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * If the attached domain is a core domain (e.g. a default_domain), it will act >>>>> + * just like the iommu_attach_group(). >>>> I am not following above two lines. Why and how could iommufd set a >>>> core domain to an iommu_group? >>> Perhaps this isn't the best narrative. What it's supposed to say >>> is that this function acts as an iommu_attach_group() call if the >>> device is "detached", yet we have changed the semantics about the >>> word "detach". So, what should the correct way to write such a >>> note? >> How could this interface be used as detaching a domain from a group? >> Even it could be used, doesn't it act as an iommu_detach_group()? > No. I didn't say that. It doesn't act as detach(), but attach() > when a device is already "detached". > > The original statement is saying, "if the attached domain is a > core domain", i.e. the device is detach()-ed, "it will act just > like the iommu_attach_group()".
Oh! My bad. I misunderstood it. Sorry for the noise. :-)
Best regards, baolu
| |