netdev - RE: [PATCH v12 vfio 3/7] vfio/pds: register with the pds

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527656A2E28090DDA4ED07728C3FA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:01:31 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "jgg@...dia.com"
	<jgg@...dia.com>, "yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com" <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
CC: "shannon.nelson@....com" <shannon.nelson@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v12 vfio 3/7] vfio/pds: register with the pds_core PF

> From: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 6:35 AM
> 
> +void pds_vfio_unregister_client_cmd(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
> +{
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = pds_vfio_to_pci_dev(pds_vfio);
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = pds_client_unregister(pci_physfn(pdev), pds_vfio->client_id);
> +	if (err)
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unregister from DSC failed: %pe\n",
> +			ERR_PTR(err));

Why using ERR_PTR() here? it looks a common pattern used cross
this series.

> @@ -34,12 +34,13 @@ enum pds_core_vif_types {
> 
>  #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_CORE_STR	"Core"
>  #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR	"vDPA"
> -#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR	"VFio"
> +#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR	"vfio"
>  #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_ETH_STR	"Eth"
>  #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_RDMA_STR	"RDMA"
>  #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR	"LM"
> 
>  #define PDS_VDPA_DEV_NAME	 "."
> PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR
> +#define PDS_LM_DEV_NAME		PDS_CORE_DRV_NAME "."
> PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "." PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR
> 

then should the name be changed to PDS_VFIO_LM_DEV_NAME?

Or is mentioning *LM* important? what would be the problem to just
use "pds_core.vfio"?