> -----Original Message----- > From: Duan, Zhenzhong <[email protected]> > Sent: 11 February 2026 10:38 > To: Shameer Kolothum Thodi <[email protected]>; qemu- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Jason Gunthorpe > <[email protected]>; Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Tian, Kevin > <[email protected]>; Liu, Yi L <[email protected]>; Hao, Xudong > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 01/14] backends/iommufd: Add pasid attach/detach > callbacks
[...] > > Have you considered extending attach_hwpt() to > >take a PASID instead of introducing a separate callback? > > Yes, I did. To extending attach/detach_hwpt(), we need to add two > parameters, "bool has_pasid, uint32_t pasid". E.g., > > bool (*attach_hwpt)(HostIOMMUDeviceIOMMUFD *idev, > bool has_pasid, uint32_t pasid, > uint32_t hwpt_id, Error **errp); > > and refactor iommufd_cdev_attach/detach_ioas_hwpt() a bit. > > I'm fine either way, two separate callbacks just look cleaner for me. > Let me know if extending is preferred. Since PASID attach/detach is essentially an extension of the existing attach/detach flow, I would prefer extending the current callbacks. I think that keeps the interface simpler and avoids code duplication. Thanks, Shameer
