Re: [PATCH v16 Kernel 1/7] vfio: KABI for migration interface for device state

[Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>]

On 3/26/2020 4:11 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 01:02:33 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
>> - Defined MIGRATION region type and sub-type.
>>
>> - Defined vfio_device_migration_info structure which will be placed at the
>>    0th offset of migration region to get/set VFIO device related
>>    information. Defined members of structure and usage on read/write access.
>>
>> - Defined device states and state transition details.
>>
>> - Defined sequence to be followed while saving and resuming VFIO device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 228 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 228 insertions(+)
> 
> (...)
> 
>> +struct vfio_device_migration_info {
>> +	__u32 device_state;         /* VFIO device state */
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_STOP      (0)
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING   (1 << 0)
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING    (1 << 1)
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING  (1 << 2)
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_MASK      (VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RUNNING | \
>> +				     VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING |  \
>> +				     VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)
>> +
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_VALID(state) \
>> +	(state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING ? \
>> +	(state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_MASK) == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING : 1)
>> +
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_IS_ERROR(state) \
>> +	((state & VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_MASK) == (VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SAVING | \
>> +					      VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING))
>> +
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_SET_ERROR(state) \
>> +	((state & ~VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_MASK) | VFIO_DEVICE_SATE_SAVING | \
>> +					     VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_RESUMING)
>> +
>> +	__u32 reserved;
>> +	__u64 pending_bytes;
>> +	__u64 data_offset;
>> +	__u64 data_size;
>> +} __attribute__((packed));
> 
> The 'packed' should not even be needed, I think?
> 

Right, Above structure is padded properly. Removing it.

>> +
>>   /*
>>    * The MSIX mappable capability informs that MSIX data of a BAR can be mmapped
>>    * which allows direct access to non-MSIX registers which happened to be within
> 
> Generally, this looks sane to me; however, we should really have
> something under Documentation/ in the long run that describes how this
> works, so that you can find out about the protocol without having to
> dig through headers.
> 

But the documentation will have almost the same text as in this comment. 
Should we replicate it?

Thanks,
Kirti