[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201030185636.60fcca52.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:56:36 +0100
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
cohuck@...hat.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 01/14] s390/vfio-ap: No need to disable IRQ after
queue reset
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:29:35 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> +void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
> >> + struct ap_queue *queue;
> >> + int apid, apqi;
> >> +
> >> + queue = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device);
> > What is the benefit of rewriting this? You introduced
> > queue just to do queue->ap_dev to get to the apdev you
> > have in hand in the first place.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're asking. This function is
> the callback function specified via the function pointer
> specified via the remove field of the struct ap_driver
> when the vfio_ap device driver is registered with the
> AP bus. That callback function takes a struct ap_device
> as a parameter. What am I missing here?
Please compare the removed function vfio_ap_queue_dev_remove() with the
added function vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue() line by line. It should
become clear.
Regards,
Halil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists