On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:49:05 +0800 Yi Liu yi.l.liu@intel.com wrote:
On 2024/10/1 20:11, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 07:55:08AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
+struct vfio_device_pasid_attach_iommufd_pt {
- __u32 argsz;
- __u32 flags;
- __u32 pasid;
- __u32 pt_id;
+};
+#define VFIO_DEVICE_PASID_ATTACH_IOMMUFD_PT _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 21)
Not sure whether this was discussed before. Does it make sense to reuse the existing VFIO_DEVICE_ATTACH_IOMMUFD_PT by introducing a new pasid field and a new flag bit?
Maybe? I don't have a strong feeling either way.
There is somewhat less code if you reuse the ioctl at least
I had a rough memory that I was suggested to add a separate ioctl for PASID. Let's see Alex's opinion.
I don't recall any previous arguments for separate ioctls, but it seems to make a lot of sense to me to extend the existing ioctls with a flag to indicate pasid cscope and id. Thanks,
Alex