From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
cohuck@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aviadye@nvidia.com,
oren@nvidia.com, shahafs@nvidia.com, parav@nvidia.com,
artemp@nvidia.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, ACurrid@nvidia.com,
cjia@nvidia.com, yishaih@nvidia.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
hch@infradead.org, targupta@nvidia.com,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, liulongfang@huawei.com,
yan.y.zhao@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] PCI: add matching checks for driver_override binding
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:33:17 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210616233317.GR1002214@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cd95b92c-a23b-03a7-1dd3-9554b9d22955@nvidia.com>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:28:36AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2021 3:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 06:22:45PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:32:57 -0300
> > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:22:42PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > b) alone is a functional, runtime difference.
> > > > > > I would state b) differently:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b) Ignore the driver-override-only match entries in the ID table.
> > > > > No, pci_match_device() returns NULL if a match is found that is marked
> > > > > driver-override-only and a driver_override is not specified. That's
> > > > > the same as no match at all. We don't then go on to search past that
> > > > > match in the table, we fail to bind the driver. That's effectively an
> > > > > anti-match when there's no driver_override on the device.
> > > > anti-match isn't the intention. The deployment will have match tables
> > > > where all entires are either flags=0 or are driver-override-only.
> > > I'd expect pci-pf-stub to have one of each, an any-id with
> > > override-only flag and the one device ID currently in the table with
> > > no flag.
> > Oh Hum. Actually I think this shows the anti-match behavior is
> > actually a bug.. :(
> >
> > For something like pci_pf_stub_whitelist, if we add a
> > driver_override-only using the PCI any id then it effectively disables
> > new_id completely because the match search will alway find the
> > driver_override match first and stop searching. There is no chance to
> > see things new_id adds.
>
> Actually the dynamic table is the first table the driver search. So new_id
> works exactly the same AFAIU.
Oh, even better, so it isn't really an issue
> But you're right for static mixed table (I assumed that this will never
> happen I guess).
Me too, we could organize the driver-overrides to be last
> - found_id = pci_match_id(drv->id_table, dev);
> - if (found_id) {
> + ids = drv->id_table;
> + while ((found_id = pci_match_id(ids, dev))) {
Yeah, keep searching makes logical sense to me
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-pf-stub.c b/drivers/pci/pci-pf-stub.c
> index 45855a5e9fca..49544ba9a7af 100644
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-pf-stub.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> */
> static const struct pci_device_id pci_pf_stub_whitelist[] = {
> { PCI_VDEVICE(AMAZON, 0x0053) },
> + { PCI_DEVICE_FLAGS(PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,
> PCI_ID_F_STUB_DRIVER_OVERRIDE) }, /* match all by default (override) */
> /* required last entry */
> { 0 }
And we don't really want this change any more right? No reason to put
pci_stub in the module.alias file?
Thanks,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 23:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-03 16:07 [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] Introduce vfio-pci-core subsystem Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:07 ` [PATCH 01/11] vfio-pci: rename vfio_pci.c to vfio_pci_core.c Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 02/11] vfio-pci: rename vfio_pci_private.h to vfio_pci_core.h Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 03/11] vfio-pci: rename vfio_pci_device to vfio_pci_core_device Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 04/11] vfio-pci: rename ops functions to fit core namings Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 05/11] vfio-pci: include vfio header in vfio_pci_core.h Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 06/11] vfio-pci: introduce vfio_pci.c Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 07/11] vfio-pci: move igd initialization to vfio_pci.c Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 08/11] PCI: add flags field to pci_device_id structure Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 09/11] PCI: add matching checks for driver_override binding Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-08 21:26 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-08 22:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 1:27 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 9:26 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-13 8:19 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-14 5:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 8:18 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-14 15:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 16:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 16:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 16:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 18:42 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 23:12 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-15 15:00 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 15:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 16:20 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 20:42 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 21:59 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 23:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 23:22 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 23:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-16 0:22 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 0:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-16 23:28 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-16 23:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-06-16 23:42 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-16 23:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-16 23:51 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-16 23:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-20 14:46 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 10/11] vfio-pci: introduce vfio_pci_core subsystem driver Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-08 21:26 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 9:29 ` Max Gurtovoy
2021-06-03 16:08 ` [PATCH 11/11] mlx5-vfio-pci: add new vfio_pci driver for mlx5 devices Max Gurtovoy
2021-07-30 7:53 ` [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] Introduce vfio-pci-core subsystem Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-30 11:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210616233317.GR1002214@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=ACurrid@nvidia.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=artemp@nvidia.com \
--cc=aviadye@nvidia.com \
--cc=cjia@nvidia.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liulongfang@huawei.com \
--cc=mgurtovoy@nvidia.com \
--cc=oren@nvidia.com \
--cc=parav@nvidia.com \
--cc=shahafs@nvidia.com \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=targupta@nvidia.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=yishaih@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).