From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9F994C042D for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789726068; cv=none; b=Vz1n6WLvfuTlFvpTE4AJKyChLfaxpyOyMgGZUYMdNsG+p9+Uu1V1TXW9EKGcPqUIW2Z/kQTWMH5hOkNOmc2n5tN0edhaheMBtCa8kHE+/xMsVOOGjWAs+S9scrUc+AhVzGLL6+DTUv52yGTxzAKjqebfIG+4++/NqAX+919v+LU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789726068; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YU09E9xCcUVm/25QGOYcP3P3SHKRzDI/6wOf6QKBDXg=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=hTx7BsXO5cYDeanAtLd/CDxt7/4W6ajJBl5ig7NFzC1A9dZG5d190JCbMWs0WQOQvqf9GZkZf8cZhhMdBYqbbCwPmJREmHFMxKK/tfLwF29e05H7NiUrncDHvBFREXyOrpV8oxEyfiRr2gxHATpd2LnlCnu5HysMNm271VmVJnE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YaPYPH2y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YaPYPH2y" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BB741F000FF; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:07:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789726066; bh=1lWqeW8RkSCQ4mmAW/UZ+RORXUUVhD49yzdjSZZAYqE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=YaPYPH2ydP6oTz4X0M45atKQCJrEQYeLFinxe1vUpbri2IlkAGZPhaY4OxDiHYF56 wSZJF/qiy5BtitDcj39nWZ+H9/ARWKFFiAiGdLnw9XamPdIMxsnkqRknYVxWH82R3j nqtJK+djl9/kldwc1OWRgEZjnYQqmqwgKX86bseW0l0PccUi4HF0i15UqJFvlBW+to U03AYIaOTrRI9grI4XAvIU7Awui1ldoqAec/hy4JOZrxfpUVNhRMd1m+R8mmwvfiPo myjPvTucDJhzKBf7ncXKiLpJyz7K2wYUgDTVRoN+MgBVYIKsHJjQp/BW2B3ExgTSW9 zDcS/WUwz3yIw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] drm/virtio-gpu: Add VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM capability Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Honglei Huang" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , virtualization@lists.linux.dev, "Eugenio Perez" , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org In-Reply-To: <20260918095940.2253018-2-honghuan@amd.com> References: <20260918095940.2253018-1-honghuan@amd.com> <20260918095940.2253018-2-honghuan@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:07:45 +0000 Message-Id: <20260918100746.2BB741F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] virtio-gpu: premature UAPI exposure of unfinalized capability ID - [Low] virtio-gpu: missing DRM UAPI alias for ROCM capability set -- commit a394228d77eeafc9f1dcc36150380f8561f1ee49 Author: Honglei Huang drm/virtio-gpu: Add VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM capability This commit adds a new GPU capability set VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM with ID 8= =20 to support ROCm compute workloads. The commit message notes that the=20 matching virtio-gpu specification change is currently in progress. > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_= gpu.h > index 4f530d90058c7..3d4dfadc9d789 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h > @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ struct virtio_gpu_cmd_submit { > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_VENUS 4 > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_CROSS_DOMAIN 5 > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_DRM 6 > +#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM 8 [Severity: Medium] Is it safe to expose this speculative capability ID to userspace before the virtio-gpu specification is finalized? The commit message states the specification change for ID 8 is in progress. Because the Linux UAPI is frozen once released, exposing this ID now could permanently commit the kernel to ID 8 for ROCm. If the OASIS virtio technical committee assigns a different ID or rejects the proposal, would this leave the Linux UAPI permanently incompatible with the standard? [Severity: Low] Also, should there be a corresponding DRM UAPI alias added for this capabil= ity set? Previous capability sets have matching definitions in virtgpu_drm.h, such as VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_VENUS and VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_DRM. Without adding a simil= ar VIRTGPU_DRM_CAPSET_ROCM alias, userspace DRM clients relying on virtgpu_drm= .h for the DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_GET_CAPS ioctl will lack the necessary constant to query ROCm capabilities natively. > /* VIRTIO_GPU_CMD_GET_CAPSET_INFO */ > struct virtio_gpu_get_capset_info { --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260918095940.2253= 018-1-honghuan@amd.com?part=3D1