On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 09:14:33AM -0800, Shameer Kolothum Thodi wrote: > > > 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);
The RID attach/detach could be just pasid=IOMMU_NO_PASID without that "has_pasid"? > > 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. +1 Nicolin
