Hi Peter, Michael,
On 2/7/25 5:40 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 11:10, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:21:51PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote: >>> This is a follow-up of Peter's attempt to fix the fact that >>> vIOMMUs are likely to be reset before the device they protect: >>> >>> [PATCH 0/4] intel_iommu: Reset vIOMMU after all the rest of devices >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240117091559.144730-1-pet...@redhat.com/ >>> >>> This is especially observed with virtio devices when a qmp system_reset >>> command is sent but also with VFIO devices. >>> >>> This series puts the vIOMMU reset in the 3-phase exit callback. >>> >>> This scheme was tested successful with virtio-devices and some >>> VFIO devices. Nevertheless not all the topologies have been >>> tested yet. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Eric >> >> >> Looks good. >> >> >> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> >> >> How should this be merged? >> I supposed I can merge the 1st three and the other >> two by the respective maintainers? >> I don't think there's a dependency here, right? > If we're happy with the design of the series I think it > would be simpler to take the whole thing through one > tree, rather than split it up. I had a question on the > smmu patch which is mostly about clarifying what the > issue is that we're running into, but in principle > I'm happy for you to take that patch as well. Thank you for the swift review. I will respin to add some comments along with the reset function and the relevance of exit phase + add more details in the cover letter. Thanks Erc > > -- PMM >
