Same for the two wrappers and their call sites.
Suggested-by: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>
Suggested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
---
include/system/iommufd.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
backends/iommufd.c | 9 +++++----
hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c | 12 ++++++++----
hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c | 8 +++++---
hw/vfio/iommufd.c | 10 +++++-----
5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
index 7062944fe6..45a9e87cb0 100644
--- a/include/system/iommufd.h
+++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
@@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
*
* @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
*
+ * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
+ *
* @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
*
* @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
*
* Returns: true on success, false on failure.
*/
- bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
- Error **errp);
+ bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
+ uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
/**
* @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware page table.
* VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
@@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
*
* @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
*
+ * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
+ *
* @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
*
* Returns: true on success, false on failure.
*/
- bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, Error **errp);
+ bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
+ Error **errp);
};
bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
- uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
-bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
+ uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
Error **errp);
+bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
+ uint32_t pasid, Error **errp);
#endif
diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
index e1fee16acf..ab612e4874 100644
--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -539,23 +539,24 @@ bool iommufd_backend_alloc_veventq(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t viommu_id,
}
bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
- uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
+ uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
+ Error **errp)
{
HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
g_assert(idevc->attach_hwpt);
- return idevc->attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
+ return idevc->attach_hwpt(idev, pasid, hwpt_id, errp);
}
bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
- Error **errp)
+ uint32_t pasid, Error **errp)
{
HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
g_assert(idevc->detach_hwpt);
- return idevc->detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
+ return idevc->detach_hwpt(idev, pasid, errp);
}
static int hiod_iommufd_get_cap(HostIOMMUDevice *hiod, int cap, Error **errp)
diff --git a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
index 65c2f44880..0af6b3296d 100644
--- a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
+++ b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
@@ -300,7 +300,8 @@ bool smmuv3_accel_install_ste(SMMUv3State *s, SMMUDevice *sdev, int sid,
return false;
}
- if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp)) {
+ if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
+ errp)) {
if (s1_hwpt) {
iommufd_backend_free_id(idev->iommufd, s1_hwpt->hwpt_id);
g_free(s1_hwpt);
@@ -575,7 +576,8 @@ smmuv3_accel_alloc_viommu(SMMUv3State *s, HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
/* Attach a HWPT based on SMMUv3 GBPA.ABORT value */
hwpt_id = smmuv3_accel_gbpa_hwpt(s, accel);
- if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp)) {
+ if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
+ errp)) {
goto free_veventq;
}
return true;
@@ -665,7 +667,8 @@ static void smmuv3_accel_unset_iommu_device(PCIBus *bus, void *opaque,
idev = accel_dev->idev;
accel = accel_dev->s_accel;
/* Re-attach the default s2 hwpt id */
- if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id, NULL)) {
+ if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
+ idev->hwpt_id, NULL)) {
error_report("Unable to attach the default HW pagetable: idev devid "
"0x%x", idev->devid);
}
@@ -879,7 +882,8 @@ bool smmuv3_accel_attach_gbpa_hwpt(SMMUv3State *s, Error **errp)
hwpt_id = smmuv3_accel_gbpa_hwpt(s, accel);
QLIST_FOREACH(accel_dev, &accel->device_list, next) {
- if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(accel_dev->idev, hwpt_id,
+ if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(accel_dev->idev,
+ IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
&local_err)) {
error_append_hint(&local_err, "Failed to attach GBPA hwpt %u for "
"idev devid %u", hwpt_id, accel_dev->idev->devid);
diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
index 67d54849f2..45c08c8f6f 100644
--- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
+++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
@@ -121,7 +121,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_attach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
}
}
- ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
+ ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
+ errp);
trace_vtd_device_attach_hwpt(idev->devid, vtd_as->pasid, hwpt_id, ret);
if (ret) {
/* Destroy old fs_hwpt if it's a replacement */
@@ -145,7 +146,7 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
bool ret;
if (s->dmar_enabled && s->root_scalable) {
- ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
+ ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
trace_vtd_device_detach_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, ret);
} else {
/*
@@ -153,7 +154,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
* we fallback to the default HWPT which contains shadow page table.
* So guest DMA could still work.
*/
- ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id, errp);
+ ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
+ idev->hwpt_id, errp);
trace_vtd_device_reattach_def_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, idev->hwpt_id,
ret);
}
diff --git a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
index 93f1e61a8c..e822039858 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
+++ b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
@@ -927,21 +927,21 @@ static void vfio_iommu_iommufd_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, const void *data)
static bool
host_iommu_device_iommufd_vfio_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
- uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
+ uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
+ Error **errp)
{
VFIODevice *vbasedev = HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE(idev)->agent;
- return !iommufd_cdev_pasid_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
- hwpt_id, errp);
+ return !iommufd_cdev_pasid_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, pasid, hwpt_id, errp);
}
static bool
host_iommu_device_iommufd_vfio_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
- Error **errp)
+ uint32_t pasid, Error **errp)
{
VFIODevice *vbasedev = HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE(idev)->agent;
- return iommufd_cdev_pasid_detach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
+ return iommufd_cdev_pasid_detach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, pasid, errp);
}
static bool hiod_iommufd_vfio_realize(HostIOMMUDevice *hiod, void *opaque,
--
2.47.3Zhenzhong
On 3/26/26 10:11, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> Same for the two wrappers and their call sites.
>
> Suggested-by: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>
> Suggested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> ---
> include/system/iommufd.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
> backends/iommufd.c | 9 +++++----
> hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c | 12 ++++++++----
> hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c | 8 +++++---
> hw/vfio/iommufd.c | 10 +++++-----
> 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
> index 7062944fe6..45a9e87cb0 100644
> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> *
> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
> *
> + * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
> + *
> * @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
> *
> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
> *
> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
> */
> - bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
> - Error **errp);
> + bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
> + uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
> /**
> * @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware page table.
> * VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
> @@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> *
> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
> *
> + * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
> + *
> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
> *
> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
> */
> - bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, Error **errp);
> + bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
> + Error **errp);
> };
>
> bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
> -bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
> Error **errp);
> +bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> + uint32_t pasid, Error **errp);
> #endif
> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
> index e1fee16acf..ab612e4874 100644
> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
> @@ -539,23 +539,24 @@ bool iommufd_backend_alloc_veventq(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t viommu_id,
> }
>
> bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
> + Error **errp)
> {
> HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
> HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
For consistency with the rest of the code, I would rename all the
idev and idevc variables, to hiod and hiodc.
Thanks,
C.
>
> g_assert(idevc->attach_hwpt);
> - return idevc->attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
> + return idevc->attach_hwpt(idev, pasid, hwpt_id, errp);
> }
>
> bool host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> - Error **errp)
> + uint32_t pasid, Error **errp)
> {
> HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
> HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
>
> g_assert(idevc->detach_hwpt);
> - return idevc->detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
> + return idevc->detach_hwpt(idev, pasid, errp);
> }
>
> static int hiod_iommufd_get_cap(HostIOMMUDevice *hiod, int cap, Error **errp)
> diff --git a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
> index 65c2f44880..0af6b3296d 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c
> @@ -300,7 +300,8 @@ bool smmuv3_accel_install_ste(SMMUv3State *s, SMMUDevice *sdev, int sid,
> return false;
> }
>
> - if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp)) {
> + if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
> + errp)) {
> if (s1_hwpt) {
> iommufd_backend_free_id(idev->iommufd, s1_hwpt->hwpt_id);
> g_free(s1_hwpt);
> @@ -575,7 +576,8 @@ smmuv3_accel_alloc_viommu(SMMUv3State *s, HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>
> /* Attach a HWPT based on SMMUv3 GBPA.ABORT value */
> hwpt_id = smmuv3_accel_gbpa_hwpt(s, accel);
> - if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp)) {
> + if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
> + errp)) {
> goto free_veventq;
> }
> return true;
> @@ -665,7 +667,8 @@ static void smmuv3_accel_unset_iommu_device(PCIBus *bus, void *opaque,
> idev = accel_dev->idev;
> accel = accel_dev->s_accel;
> /* Re-attach the default s2 hwpt id */
> - if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id, NULL)) {
> + if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
> + idev->hwpt_id, NULL)) {
> error_report("Unable to attach the default HW pagetable: idev devid "
> "0x%x", idev->devid);
> }
> @@ -879,7 +882,8 @@ bool smmuv3_accel_attach_gbpa_hwpt(SMMUv3State *s, Error **errp)
>
> hwpt_id = smmuv3_accel_gbpa_hwpt(s, accel);
> QLIST_FOREACH(accel_dev, &accel->device_list, next) {
> - if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(accel_dev->idev, hwpt_id,
> + if (!host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(accel_dev->idev,
> + IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
> &local_err)) {
> error_append_hint(&local_err, "Failed to attach GBPA hwpt %u for "
> "idev devid %u", hwpt_id, accel_dev->idev->devid);
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> index 67d54849f2..45c08c8f6f 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_attach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> }
> }
>
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
> + errp);
> trace_vtd_device_attach_hwpt(idev->devid, vtd_as->pasid, hwpt_id, ret);
> if (ret) {
> /* Destroy old fs_hwpt if it's a replacement */
> @@ -145,7 +146,7 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> bool ret;
>
> if (s->dmar_enabled && s->root_scalable) {
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
> trace_vtd_device_detach_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, ret);
> } else {
> /*
> @@ -153,7 +154,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> * we fallback to the default HWPT which contains shadow page table.
> * So guest DMA could still work.
> */
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
> + idev->hwpt_id, errp);
> trace_vtd_device_reattach_def_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, idev->hwpt_id,
> ret);
> }
> diff --git a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
> index 93f1e61a8c..e822039858 100644
> --- a/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
> +++ b/hw/vfio/iommufd.c
> @@ -927,21 +927,21 @@ static void vfio_iommu_iommufd_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, const void *data)
>
> static bool
> host_iommu_device_iommufd_vfio_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
> + Error **errp)
> {
> VFIODevice *vbasedev = HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE(idev)->agent;
>
> - return !iommufd_cdev_pasid_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
> - hwpt_id, errp);
> + return !iommufd_cdev_pasid_attach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, pasid, hwpt_id, errp);
> }
>
> static bool
> host_iommu_device_iommufd_vfio_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
> - Error **errp)
> + uint32_t pasid, Error **errp)
> {
> VFIODevice *vbasedev = HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE(idev)->agent;
>
> - return iommufd_cdev_pasid_detach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
> + return iommufd_cdev_pasid_detach_ioas_hwpt(vbasedev, pasid, errp);
> }
>
> static bool hiod_iommufd_vfio_realize(HostIOMMUDevice *hiod, void *opaque,
Hi
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 8:43 PM
>To: Duan, Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>Cc: alex@shazbot.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; mst@redhat.com;
>jasowang@redhat.com; jgg@nvidia.com; nicolinc@nvidia.com;
>skolothumtho@nvidia.com; joao.m.martins@oracle.com; clement.mathieu--
>drif@bull.com; Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>; Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>;
>Hao, Xudong <xudong.hao@intel.com>; qemu-arm@nongnu.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>support pasid
>
>Zhenzhong
>
>On 3/26/26 10:11, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> Same for the two wrappers and their call sites.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>
>> Suggested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>> ---
>> include/system/iommufd.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
>> backends/iommufd.c | 9 +++++----
>> hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c | 8 +++++---
>> hw/vfio/iommufd.c | 10 +++++-----
>> 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> index 7062944fe6..45a9e87cb0 100644
>> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
>> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>> *
>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>> *
>> + * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
>> + *
>> * @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
>> *
>> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
>> *
>> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
>> */
>> - bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>> - Error **errp);
>> + bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
>> + uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
>> /**
>> * @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware
>page table.
>> * VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
>> @@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>> *
>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>> *
>> + * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
>> + *
>> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
>> *
>> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
>> */
>> - bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, Error **errp);
>> + bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
>> + Error **errp);
>> };
>>
>> bool
>host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
>> -bool
>host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>> Error **errp);
>> +bool
>host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>> + uint32_t pasid, Error **errp);
>> #endif
>> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>> index e1fee16acf..ab612e4874 100644
>> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
>> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>> @@ -539,23 +539,24 @@ bool
>iommufd_backend_alloc_veventq(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t viommu_id,
>> }
>>
>> bool
>host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
>> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>> + Error **errp)
>> {
>> HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
>> HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
>
>
>For consistency with the rest of the code, I would rename all the
>idev and idevc variables, to hiod and hiodc.
We have used hiod and hiodc for the base HostIOMMUDevice type:
HostIOMMUDevice *hiod;
HostIOMMUDeviceClass *hiodc;
To avoid conflict, what about hiodi and hiodic for HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD type?
Thanks
Zhenzhong
On 3/31/26 07:31, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Hi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 8:43 PM
>> To: Duan, Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>> Cc: alex@shazbot.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; mst@redhat.com;
>> jasowang@redhat.com; jgg@nvidia.com; nicolinc@nvidia.com;
>> skolothumtho@nvidia.com; joao.m.martins@oracle.com; clement.mathieu--
>> drif@bull.com; Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>; Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>;
>> Hao, Xudong <xudong.hao@intel.com>; qemu-arm@nongnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>> support pasid
>>
>> Zhenzhong
>>
>> On 3/26/26 10:11, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>> Same for the two wrappers and their call sites.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <skolothumtho@nvidia.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/system/iommufd.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
>>> backends/iommufd.c | 9 +++++----
>>> hw/arm/smmuv3-accel.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>> hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c | 8 +++++---
>>> hw/vfio/iommufd.c | 10 +++++-----
>>> 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
>>> index 7062944fe6..45a9e87cb0 100644
>>> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
>>> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
>>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>>> *
>>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>>> *
>>> + * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
>>> + *
>>> * @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
>>> *
>>> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
>>> *
>>> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
>>> */
>>> - bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>>> - Error **errp);
>>> + bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
>>> + uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
>>> /**
>>> * @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware
>> page table.
>>> * VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
>>> @@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>>> *
>>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>>> *
>>> + * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
>>> + *
>>> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
>>> *
>>> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
>>> */
>>> - bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, Error **errp);
>>> + bool (*detach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
>>> + Error **errp);
>>> };
>>>
>>> bool
>> host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>>> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
>>> -bool
>> host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>>> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>>> Error **errp);
>>> +bool
>> host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>>> + uint32_t pasid, Error **errp);
>>> #endif
>>> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>>> index e1fee16acf..ab612e4874 100644
>>> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
>>> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>>> @@ -539,23 +539,24 @@ bool
>> iommufd_backend_alloc_veventq(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t viommu_id,
>>> }
>>>
>>> bool
>> host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev,
>>> - uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp)
>>> + uint32_t pasid, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>>> + Error **errp)
>>> {
>>> HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass *idevc =
>>> HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD_GET_CLASS(idev);
>>
>>
>> For consistency with the rest of the code, I would rename all the
>> idev and idevc variables, to hiod and hiodc.
>
> We have used hiod and hiodc for the base HostIOMMUDevice type:
>
> HostIOMMUDevice *hiod;
> HostIOMMUDeviceClass *hiodc;
>
> To avoid conflict, what about hiodi and hiodic for HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD type?
>
fine with me.
Thanks,
C.
On 3/26/26 17:11, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> index 67d54849f2..45c08c8f6f 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_attach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> }
> }
>
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, hwpt_id,
> + errp);
> trace_vtd_device_attach_hwpt(idev->devid, vtd_as->pasid, hwpt_id, ret);
The trace looks to use the wrong pasid. could you make it use
IOMMU_NO_PASID as well? Same to the below chunks.
> if (ret) {
> /* Destroy old fs_hwpt if it's a replacement */
> @@ -145,7 +146,7 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> bool ret;
>
> if (s->dmar_enabled && s->root_scalable) {
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
> trace_vtd_device_detach_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, ret);
> } else {
> /*
> @@ -153,7 +154,8 @@ static bool vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
> * we fallback to the default HWPT which contains shadow page table.
> * So guest DMA could still work.
> */
> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id, errp);
> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
> + idev->hwpt_id, errp);
> trace_vtd_device_reattach_def_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, idev->hwpt_id,
> ret);
Regards,
Yi Liu
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>support pasid
>
>On 3/26/26 17:11, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
>> index 67d54849f2..45c08c8f6f 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_accel.c
>> @@ -121,7 +121,8 @@ static bool
>vtd_device_attach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, hwpt_id, errp);
>> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, IOMMU_NO_PASID,
>hwpt_id,
>> + errp);
>> trace_vtd_device_attach_hwpt(idev->devid, vtd_as->pasid, hwpt_id, ret);
>
>The trace looks to use the wrong pasid. could you make it use
>IOMMU_NO_PASID as well? Same to the below chunks.
OK, will do. In fact vtd_as->pasid always equals to IOMMU_NO_PASID here because we don't support pasid yet.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
>
>> if (ret) {
>> /* Destroy old fs_hwpt if it's a replacement */
>> @@ -145,7 +146,7 @@ static bool
>vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
>> bool ret;
>>
>> if (s->dmar_enabled && s->root_scalable) {
>> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev, errp);
>> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_detach_hwpt(idev,
>IOMMU_NO_PASID, errp);
>> trace_vtd_device_detach_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, ret);
>> } else {
>> /*
>> @@ -153,7 +154,8 @@ static bool
>vtd_device_detach_iommufd(VTDHostIOMMUDevice *vtd_hiod,
>> * we fallback to the default HWPT which contains shadow page table.
>> * So guest DMA could still work.
>> */
>> - ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev, idev->hwpt_id,
>errp);
>> + ret = host_iommu_device_iommufd_attach_hwpt(idev,
>IOMMU_NO_PASID,
>> + idev->hwpt_id, errp);
>> trace_vtd_device_reattach_def_hwpt(idev->devid, pasid, idev->hwpt_id,
>> ret);
>
>Regards,
>Yi Liu
On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> *
> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
> + * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
> + *
How about "target pasid of the device to be attached"?
The uAPI docs has the narrative "pasid of this device", which makes
it clearer.
> * @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
> *
> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
> *
> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
> */
> - bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
> - Error **errp);
> + bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
> + uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
> /**
> * @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware page table.
> * VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
> @@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> *
> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
> *
> + * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
Ditto
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>support pasid
>
>On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>> *
>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>
>Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
>device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
>an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
A host device under host IOMMU?
>
>> + * @pasid: target pasid of attach.
>> + *
>
>How about "target pasid of the device to be attached"?
Looks fine, will do.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
>
>The uAPI docs has the narrative "pasid of this device", which makes
>it clearer.
>
>> * @hwpt_id: ID of IOMMUFD hardware page table.
>> *
>> * @errp: pass an Error out when attachment fails.
>> *
>> * Returns: true on success, false on failure.
>> */
>> - bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>> - Error **errp);
>> + bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, uint32_t pasid,
>> + uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp);
>> /**
>> * @detach_hwpt: detach host IOMMU device from IOMMUFD hardware
>page table.
>> * VFIO and VDPA device can have different implementation.
>> @@ -154,15 +156,19 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>> *
>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>> *
>> + * @pasid: target pasid of detach.
>
>Ditto
>
>Otherwise,
>
>Reviewed-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
> >support pasid
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> >> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> >> *
> >> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
> >
> >Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
> >device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
> >an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
>
> A host device under host IOMMU?
"host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
Nicolin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>support pasid
>
>On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks
>to
>> >support pasid
>> >
>> >On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> >> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>> >> *
>> >> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>> >
>> >Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
>> >device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
>> >an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
>>
>> A host device under host IOMMU?
>
>"host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
We want to emphasize that it's a "host device" backed by "host IOMMU",
"host device" is not enough, I think.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
On 3/27/26 07:44, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>> support pasid
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks
>> to
>>>> support pasid
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>>>>> *
>>>>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>>>>
>>>> Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
>>>> device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
>>>> an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
>>>
>>> A host device under host IOMMU?
>>
>> "host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
>
> We want to emphasize that it's a "host device" backed by "host IOMMU",
> "host device" is not enough, I think.
Yes. These are related to the Host IOMMU device backends :
- VFIO IOMMU Type1, a.k.a legacy backend
- IOMMUFD,
There are other implementations. VFIO IOMMU Type1 is versioned and
a ppc flavor exists.
Thanks,
C.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:34:01AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 3/27/26 07:44, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
> > > support pasid
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks
> > > to
> > > > > support pasid
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
> > > > > device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
> > > > > an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
> > > >
> > > > A host device under host IOMMU?
> > >
> > > "host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
> >
> > We want to emphasize that it's a "host device" backed by "host IOMMU",
> > "host device" is not enough, I think.
> Yes. These are related to the Host IOMMU device backends :
>
> - VFIO IOMMU Type1, a.k.a legacy backend
> - IOMMUFD,
>
> There are other implementations. VFIO IOMMU Type1 is versioned and
> a ppc flavor exists.
But the @idev here is a passthrough device (VFIO/PCI)?
"IOMMU device" would be SMMU, VT-d...
Especially we are adding @pasid parameter. Relating it to SMMU or
VT-d sounds weird.
Nicolin
On 3/27/26 21:52, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:34:01AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> On 3/27/26 07:44, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>>>> support pasid
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks
>>>> to
>>>>>> support pasid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>>>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
>>>>>> device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
>>>>>> an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
>>>>>
>>>>> A host device under host IOMMU?
>>>>
>>>> "host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
>>>
>>> We want to emphasize that it's a "host device" backed by "host IOMMU",
>>> "host device" is not enough, I think.
>> Yes. These are related to the Host IOMMU device backends :
>>
>> - VFIO IOMMU Type1, a.k.a legacy backend
>> - IOMMUFD,
>>
>> There are other implementations. VFIO IOMMU Type1 is versioned and
>> a ppc flavor exists.
>
> But the @idev here is a passthrough device (VFIO/PCI)?
>
> "IOMMU device" would be SMMU, VT-d...
The 'idev' above is for a 'host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend'
AFAICT.
> Especially we are adding @pasid parameter. Relating it to SMMU or
> VT-d sounds weird.
host IOMMU device variables are usually named 'hiod' and the class 'hiodc'.
Thanks,
C.
Hi Cédric, Zhenzhong,
On 3/28/26 04:52, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:34:01AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> On 3/27/26 07:44, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks to
>>>> support pasid
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 02:32:57AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] iommufd: Extend attach/detach_hwpt callbacks
>>>> to
>>>>>> support pasid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 05:11:16AM -0400, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>>>> @@ -138,14 +138,16 @@ struct HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFDClass {
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> * @idev: host IOMMU device backed by IOMMUFD backend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not commenting against this patch, but I just found the "host IOMMU
>>>>>> device" and the "HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD" a bit ambiguous. It's not
>>>>>> an "IOMMU device" right? Perhaps somebody can help me understand :)
>>>>>
>>>>> A host device under host IOMMU?
>>>>
>>>> "host device" would make sense, not "host IOMMU device", right?
>>>
>>> We want to emphasize that it's a "host device" backed by "host IOMMU",
>>> "host device" is not enough, I think.
>> Yes. These are related to the Host IOMMU device backends :
>>
>> - VFIO IOMMU Type1, a.k.a legacy backend
>> - IOMMUFD,
>>
>> There are other implementations. VFIO IOMMU Type1 is versioned and
>> a ppc flavor exists.
>
> But the @idev here is a passthrough device (VFIO/PCI)?
>
> "IOMMU device" would be SMMU, VT-d...
>
> Especially we are adding @pasid parameter. Relating it to SMMU or
> VT-d sounds weird.
how about "@idev: the iommufd-backed assigned device to xxx"? This
object is quite similar to the iommufd_device object of the kernel side,
kernel refers iommufd_device parameters as device.
1046 /**
1047 * iommufd_device_detach - Disconnect a device/device to an
iommu_domain
1048 * @idev: device to detach
1049 * @pasid: pasid to detach
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.