Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] iommu: Refactoring domain allocation interface

[Baolu Lu]

On 7/9/24 12:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 03:18:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:55:34 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > The IOMMU subsystem has undergone some changes, including the removal
> > > of iommu_ops from the bus structure. Consequently, the existing domain
> > > allocation interface, which relies on a bus type argument, is no longer
> > > relevant:
> > >
> > >      struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain_alloc(struct bus_type *bus)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > Applied a few of these to iommu (iommufd/paging-domain-alloc), thanks!
> >
> > [01/21] iommu: Add iommu_paging_domain_alloc() interface
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/a27bf2743cb8
> > [02/21] iommufd: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/26a581606fab
> > [03/21] vfio/type1: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/60ffc4501722
> > [04/21] vhost-vdpa: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/9c159f6de1ae
> > [05/21] drm/msm: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/45acf35af200
> >
> > [10/21] wifi: ath10k: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/d5b7485588df
> > [11/21] wifi: ath11k: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/ef50d41fbf1c
> >
> > [14/21] RDMA/usnic: Use iommu_paging_domain_alloc()
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/3b10f25704be
> > [15/21] iommu/vt-d: Add helper to allocate paging domain
> >          https://git.kernel.org/iommu/c/9e9ba576c259
> Great, Lu can you please split the remaining by subsystem and try to
> get them to go through subsystem trees? Joerg can take the leftovers
> at rc6/7 or something like that so we can finish this.

Yes, sure. I guess I need to wait until 6.11-rc1 is out. It's a bit late
in the cycle for the subsystem trees to accept brand new changes.

> I think this is enough that Intel and AMD could now assert that dev is
> non-null?

Yes.

Thanks,
baolu