From: Nicolin Chen nicolinc@nvidia.com Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:18 AM
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 08:46:04AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Nicolin Chen nicolinc@nvidia.com Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 3:05 PM
@@ -246,6 +249,18 @@ static int iommufd_device_do_attach(struct iommufd_device *idev, } }
if (cur_hwpt) {/* Replace the cur_hwpt */mutex_lock(&cur_hwpt->devices_lock);if (cur_hwpt->ioas != hwpt->ioas)iopt_remove_reserved_iova(&cur_hwpt->ioas->iopt,idev->dev);list_del(&cur_hwpt->hwpt_item);emmm shouldn't this be done only when the device is the last one attached to the hwpt? and if it's the last one you should also iopt_table_remove_domain() together with list_del, i.e. similar housekeeping as done in iommufd_device_detach().
You are right. I had another patch on top of this series, moving this list_del() and iopt_table_remove_domain() to the destroy() callback, so I overlooked.
And I just found that the list_add_del(hwpt_item) in the IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW_PAGETABLE case doesn't seem to call at the first device's attachment. So, I think that we might need my previous "symmetric" patch in this series too.
Yes, that makes sense.