[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220223104248.62b7ad12.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:42:48 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>
Cc: <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <jgg@...dia.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <leonro@...dia.com>,
<kwankhede@...dia.com>, <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>, <maorg@...dia.com>,
<cohuck@...hat.com>, <ashok.raj@...el.com>, <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 mlx5-next 10/15] vfio: Extend the device migration
protocol with RUNNING_P2P
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:57:11 +0200
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/vfio.h b/include/linux/vfio.h
> index 3bbadcdbc9c8..3176cb5d4464 100644
> --- a/include/linux/vfio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/vfio.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct vfio_device {
> struct vfio_group *group;
> struct vfio_device_set *dev_set;
> struct list_head dev_set_list;
> + unsigned int migration_flags;
Maybe paranoia, but should we sanity test this in __vfio_register_dev()
to reinforce to driver authors that not all bit combinations are valid?
Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists