Hi,

Kindly ping, any comments?

Thanks
Zhenzhong

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:34:01PM -0500, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When we add pasid support in QEMU for passthrough device, we found
> PASID attachment to a nested parent domain with dirty tracking failed.
>
> It's because PASID-level dirty tracking is not there yet, by adding it,
> we can enable PASID attachment to such domain.
>
> Thanks
> Zhenzhong
>
>
> Zhenzhong Duan (3):
>   iommupt/vtd: Pass dmar_domain pointer to device_set_dirty_tracking()
>   iommupt/vtd: Support dirty tracking on PASID
>   iommufd/selftest: Test dirty tracking on PASID

On 3/23/26 09:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Kindly ping, any comments?

This series looks fine to me. I will queue it (with the typo in the
subject fixed) for iommu/next if no further concerns. Thanks!

> Thanks
> Zhenzhong
> 
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 09:34:01PM -0500, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When we add pasid support in QEMU for passthrough device, we found
>> PASID attachment to a nested parent domain with dirty tracking failed.
>>
>> It's because PASID-level dirty tracking is not there yet, by adding it,
>> we can enable PASID attachment to such domain.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Zhenzhong
>>
>>
>> Zhenzhong Duan (3):
>>    iommupt/vtd: Pass dmar_domain pointer to device_set_dirty_tracking()
>>    iommupt/vtd: Support dirty tracking on PASID
>>    iommufd/selftest: Test dirty tracking on PASID
>

Hi Baolu,

On 3/23/26 10:54, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 3/23/26 09:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kindly ping, any comments?
> 
> This series looks fine to me. I will queue it (with the typo in the
> subject fixed) for iommu/next if no further concerns. Thanks!
The series also looks good to me with one more nit besides the typo in 
the subjects.

I think it's better to name device_set_dirty_tracking() to be 
domain_set_dirty_tracking() in patch 01.

Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>

Regards,
Yi Liu

Hi Baolu,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iommupt/vtd: Support dirty tracking on PASID
>
>Hi Baolu,
>
>On 3/23/26 10:54, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 3/23/26 09:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Kindly ping, any comments?
>>
>> This series looks fine to me. I will queue it (with the typo in the
>> subject fixed) for iommu/next if no further concerns. Thanks!
>The series also looks good to me with one more nit besides the typo in
>the subjects.
>
>I think it's better to name device_set_dirty_tracking() to be
>domain_set_dirty_tracking() in patch 01.

May I ask your preference so I could have it in next respin, device_set_dirty_tracking vs domain_set_dirty_tracking?

Thanks
Zhenzhong

>
>Feel free to add:
>
>Reviewed-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>
>Regards,
>Yi Liu

On 3/30/26 10:04, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Hi Baolu,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iommupt/vtd: Support dirty tracking on PASID
>>
>> Hi Baolu,
>>
>> On 3/23/26 10:54, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>> On 3/23/26 09:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Kindly ping, any comments?
>>> This series looks fine to me. I will queue it (with the typo in the
>>> subject fixed) for iommu/next if no further concerns. Thanks!
>> The series also looks good to me with one more nit besides the typo in
>> the subjects.
>>
>> I think it's better to name device_set_dirty_tracking() to be
>> domain_set_dirty_tracking() in patch 01.
> May I ask your preference so I could have it in next respin, device_set_dirty_tracking vs domain_set_dirty_tracking?

I prefer domain_set_dirty_tracking() according to what the helper does.

Thanks,
baolu