On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 09:22:16AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 05:37:48PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote: > > > Why check it at all? Is there an issue with attaching the same thing > > > twice? Will it blip the DMA or something? > > > > Actually, I do not think there should be any issue with attaching twice. > > Hyper-V *should* be able to accept such attachment. But I do not want to > > make such assumption just for a redundant hypercall. > > > > Does this reasoning make sense, or would you prefer that I remove the > > check? > > I would probably drop it. Having blocking always set blocking to the > HW regardless of what the SW tracking state says feels more robust to > me. >
Got it. Will drop the check and make sure each blocking request reasserts the blocking state in Hyper-V at HW level. B.R. Yu > Jason >
