Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] vfio: Mark cdev usage in vfio_device

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
Cc: "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	"nicolinc@nvidia.com" <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
	"chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
	"yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
	"peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
	"jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
	"lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" 
	<intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@intel.com>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	"Xu, Terrence" <terrence.xu@intel.com>,
	"Jiang, Yanting" <yanting.jiang@intel.com>,
	"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>,
	"clegoate@redhat.com" <clegoate@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] vfio: Mark cdev usage in vfio_device
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:11:57 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZImujXKfS2NP3LqU@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DS0PR11MB752998A3AE0185BBF179F3BBC35AA@DS0PR11MB7529.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 05:56:08AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:56 AM
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:15:12AM -0700, Yi Liu wrote:
> > > This can be used to differentiate whether to report group_id or devid in
> > > the revised VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO ioctl. At this moment, no
> > > cdev path yet, so the vfio_device_cdev_opened() helper always returns false.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > > Tested-by: Terrence Xu <terrence.xu@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/vfio.h | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/vfio.h b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > > index 2c137ea94a3e..2a45853773a6 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/vfio.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > > @@ -139,6 +139,11 @@ int vfio_iommufd_emulated_attach_ioas(struct vfio_device
> > *vdev, u32 *pt_id);
> > >  	((int (*)(struct vfio_device *vdev, u32 *pt_id)) NULL)
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > +static inline bool vfio_device_cdev_opened(struct vfio_device *device)
> > > +{
> > > +	return false;
> > > +}
> > 
> > This and the two hunks in the other two patches that use this function
> > should be folded into the cdev series, probably just flattened to one
> > patch
> 
> Hmmm. I have a doubt about the rule. I think the reason to have this
> sub-series is to avoid bumping the cdev series. So perhaps we can still
> put this and the patch 9 in this series? Otherwise, most of the series
> needs to be in the cdev series.

Well, then Alex should apply them at the same time..

Jason