Hi Leon,
On 23/09/2026 17:52, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Matt Evans wrote:
So the worry was that the VFIO DMABUF's temp/perm state could be misconstrued as an implication/guarantee about the future availability of that DMABUF to importers, OK. And we want the existing move(false) behaviour still, for dynamic importers that treat it as a move.
This is not a bug; the behavior is intentional.
I wasn't meaning to imply that! :)
During review of the initial> versions of the revoke mechanism, it was
pointed out that
`move_notify == invalidate_mappings == revoke`. The initial versions introduced a separate function call for revocation, which we abandon in favour of move semantics.
That makes sense, and it's good to know that background.
Thank you,
Matt