From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5254C4321D for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBAE214C2 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7BBAE214C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389351AbeHPK0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:26:54 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:34590 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727285AbeHPK0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:26:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93F91818A6B0; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4AB79DE; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:30:15 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Tony Krowiak Cc: Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure adapters Message-ID: <20180816093015.19e54936.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4bf27c7a-34c6-9160-cdc6-19022b86202b@linux.ibm.com> References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-11-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180815115242.35a2a1ce.cohuck@redhat.com> <4bf27c7a-34c6-9160-cdc6-19022b86202b@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.8]); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.8]); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:30:22 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.5' DOMAIN:'int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'cohuck@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:59:35 -0400 Tony Krowiak wrote: > On 08/15/2018 05:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:07 -0400 > > Tony Krowiak wrote: > >> +/** > >> + * unassign_adapter_store > >> + * > >> + * @dev: the matrix device > >> + * @attr: a mediated matrix device attribute > >> + * @buf: a buffer containing the adapter ID (APID) to be assigned > >> + * @count: the number of bytes in @buf > >> + * > >> + * Parses the APID from @buf and unassigns it from the mediated matrix device. > >> + * The APID must be a valid value > > A valid value, but not necessarily assigned, right? > > You are correct, if the APID is not assigned, then the corresponding bit > will be > cleared regardless. In a previous version, the functions failed if the > APID is > not assigned, but a colleague removed that check. I guess it makes sense > given > it really does not hurt anything to ask to unassign an APID that isn't > assigned > to begin with. Would you prefer I update the comment, or do you feel the > user > should be made aware of an attempt to unassign an APID that is not assigned? I think the code is fine; updating the comment would be good.