RE: [PATCH 2/8] vfio: Rename __vfio_group_unset_container()

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>]

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:02 AM
> 
> To vfio_container_detatch_group(). This function is really a container
> function.
> 
> Fold the WARN_ON() into it as a precondition assertion.
> 
> A following patch will move the vfio_container functions to their own .c
> file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
> index bfa6119ba47337..e145c87f208f3a 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
> @@ -928,12 +928,13 @@ static const struct file_operations vfio_fops = {
>  /*
>   * VFIO Group fd, /dev/vfio/$GROUP
>   */
> -static void __vfio_group_unset_container(struct vfio_group *group)
> +static void vfio_container_detatch_group(struct vfio_group *group)

s/detatch/detach/

Given it's a vfio_container function is it better to have a container pointer
as the first parameter, i.e.:

static void vfio_container_detatch_group(struct vfio_container *container,
		struct vfio_group *group)

ditto for patch7:

+static void vfio_container_register_device(struct vfio_device *device)