[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c97caa0-f6f6-11c8-9870-4f08f6f8d6a0@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:51:09 +0300
From: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, <cohuck@...hat.com>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<aviadye@...dia.com>, <oren@...dia.com>, <shahafs@...dia.com>,
<parav@...dia.com>, <artemp@...dia.com>, <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
<ACurrid@...dia.com>, <cjia@...dia.com>, <yishaih@...dia.com>,
<kevin.tian@...el.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <targupta@...dia.com>,
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, <liulongfang@...wei.com>,
<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] PCI: add matching checks for driver_override
binding
On 6/17/2021 2:44 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:42:46AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>> Do you see a reason not adding this alias for stub drivers but
>> adding it to vfio_pci drivers ?
> It creates uABI without a userspace user and that is strongly
> discouraged. The 'stub_pci:' prefix becomes fixed ABI.
so is it better to have "pci:v*d*sv*sd*bc*sc*i*" for stub drivers ? or
not adding alias at all if stub flag is set ?
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists