Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v13 22/22] docs: vfio: Add vfio device cdev description

[Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:12:14 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 08:54:33AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 5:54 AM
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 02:39:46 -0700
> > > Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com> wrote:  
> >   
> > > > +VFIO device cdev doesn't rely on VFIO group/container/iommu drivers.
> > > > +Hence those modules can be fully compiled out in an environment
> > > > +where no legacy VFIO application exists.
> > > > +
> > > > +So far SPAPR does not support IOMMUFD yet.  So it cannot support device
> > > > +cdev either.  
> > > 
> > > Why isn´t this enforced via Kconfig?  At the vfio level we could simply
> > > add the following in patch 17/:
> > > 
> > > config VFIO_DEVICE_CDEV
> > >         bool "Support for the VFIO cdev /dev/vfio/devices/vfioX"
> > >         depends on IOMMUFD && !SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU
> > >                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 
> > > Or if Jason wants, IOMMUFD could depend on !SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU for now and
> > > the existing Kconfig options would exclude it.  If we know it doesn't
> > > work, let's not put the burden on the user to figure that out.  A
> > > follow-up patch for this would be fine if there's no other reason to
> > > respin the series.  
> > 
> > @Jason,
> > How about your opinion? Seems reasonable to make IOMMUFD
> > depend on !SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU. Is it?  
> 
> The right kconfig would be to list all the iommu drivers that can
> support iommufd and allow it to be selected if any of them are
> enabled.
> 
> This seems too complex to bother with, so I like Alex's version above..
> 
> > > Otherwise the series is looking pretty good to me.  It still requires
> > > some reviews/acks in the iommufd space and it would be good to see more
> > > reviews for the remainder given the amount of collaboration here.
> > > 
> > > I'm out for the rest of the week, but I'll leave open accepting this
> > > and the hot-reset series next week for the merge window.  Thanks,  
> > 
> > @Alex,
> > Given Jason's remarks on cdev v12, I've already got a new version as below.
> > I can post it once the above kconfig open is closed.  
> 
> I think we don't need to bend the rules, Linus would not be happy to
> see 30 major patches that never hit linux-next at all.
> 
> I'm happy if we put it on a branch at RC1 and merge it to the vfio &
> iommufd trees, it is functionally the same outcome in the same time
> frame.

Not sure I'm clear on the plan.  My intention would have been to apply
v14 to my next branch, make sure it did see linux-next exposure,
and send a pull request for rc1 next week.

Are you suggesting a post-merge-window pull request for v6.5 (also
frowned on) or are you suggesting that it simmers in both our next
branches until v6.6?  Thanks,

Alex