>>>> @@ -2121,10 +2112,6 @@ static bool
>>> vtd_do_iommu_translate(VTDAddressSpace *vtd_as, PCIBus *bus,
>>>>
>>>> vtd_iommu_lock(s);
>>>>
>>>> - if (pasid == PCI_NO_PASID && s->root_scalable) {
>>>> - pasid = IOMMU_NO_PASID;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> /* Try to fetch pte from IOTLB */
>>>> iotlb_entry = vtd_lookup_iotlb(s, source_id, pasid, addr);
>>>> if (iotlb_entry) {
>>>> @@ -2235,7 +2222,7 @@ static bool
>>> vtd_do_iommu_translate(VTDAddressSpace *vtd_as, PCIBus *bus,
>>>> if (ret_fr) {
>>>> if (!vtd_is_recoverable_fault(-ret_fr, iommu_idx)) {
>>>> vtd_report_fault(s, -ret_fr, is_fpd_set, source_id,
>>>> - addr, is_write, pasid != PCI_NO_PASID, pasid);
>>>> + addr, is_write, s->root_scalable, pasid);
>>>
>>> a typo here? s->root_scalable should be "pasid != IOMMU_NO_PASID"?
>>
>> This is intentional.
>> pasid = vtd_as->pasid = iommu_pasid, so it never equals PCI_NO_PASID now.
>
>not quite get. It can still possibly be IOMMU_NO_PASID, right? If not,
>this looks to have introduced functional change, which should not be
>expected by this patch.
Before this patch, If pasid == PCI_NO_PASID && s->root_scalable is true, then
we pass is_pasid=true to vtd_report_fault().
If we change to use "pasid != IOMMU_NO_PASID" in this patch, then we pass
is_pasid=false to vtd_report_fault() for the same scenario because pasid is
IOMMU_NO_PASID now.
But using s->root_scalable could keep functions unchanged, right?
Thanks
Zhenzhong
