[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5276D1F7085046F5A86C905F8C08A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 03:58:42 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>
CC: "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested
translation
> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:13 AM
>
> On 2023/8/2 15:10, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:13 PM
> >> +
> >> + if (!ecap_nest(iommu->ecap)) {
> >> + pr_err_ratelimited("%s: No nested translation support\n",
> >> + iommu->name);
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >> + }
> > -EINVAL
>
> This is in the attach domain path. -EINVAL has the special meaning of
> "this domain is not compatible with iommu for the device".
>
> So here, I still think we should return -ENODEV and the caller doesn't
> need to retry anymore.
>
You are right. I overlooked that this validation is for a device cap.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists