[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210922235639.GD964074@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:56:39 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/20] vfio: Add vfio_[un]register_device()
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 02:10:36PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> But why would we create vfio device interface files at all if they
> can't work? I'm not really on board with creating a try-and-fail
> interface for a mechanism that cannot work for a given device. The
> existence of the device interface should indicate that it's supported.
I'm a little worried about adding a struct device to vfio_device and
then making it optional.. That is a really weird situation.
I suppose you could create the sysfs presence in the struct device but
not create a cdev.
However, if we ever want to use the device fd for something else, like
querying the device driver capabilities or mode, (ie clean the
driver_api thing wrongly placed in mdev sysfs for instance), we are
blocked as the uAPI will be cdev == must support iommufd..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists