[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66de1211-2a18-8c68-e321-a1af42bc4537@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 17:17:19 -0400
From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...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 10/30/20 1:56 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 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.
Got it. You are one sharp cookie, I'll fix this.
>
> Regards,
> Halil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists