From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] cxl/region: Create attribute structure / verify
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:37:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210611143729.00004dbc@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210610185725.897541-3-ben.widawsky@intel.com>
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:57:23 -0700
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> wrote:
> Introduce a verification mechanism for a region. Regions have complex
> configuration requirements and it is beneficial to provide a way to
> verify the constraints are met before trying to bind. Primarily it adds
> ABI to inform userspace of more detailed information about what failed
> rather than the limited choices of errno at bind time.
>
> It's important to point out that a verified region can still fail to
> bind, but the first step in binding will be to run the same verification
> algorithm.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
>
> --
>
> Functionally it might make sense to squash this patch in with other
> patches adding attributes. From a discussion standpoint however, it's
> nice to have this broken out as I suspect there might be some debate
> about it.
Hmm. Definitely squash it in later, as this is downright odd at the moment!
Is there precedence elsewhere for this interface approach?
I can see the advantage of it as it lets us pass through invalid states
whilst configuring but it is somewhat unusual.
Probably one for linux-api@vger.kernel.org to get more exposure to people
who care about this stuff. I suspect there aren't that many people
on linux-cxl yet ;)
Jonathan
> ---
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-cxl | 13 +++++++++++++
> drivers/cxl/region.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-cxl b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-cxl
> index 5bcbefd4ea38..699c8514fd7b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-cxl
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-cxl
> @@ -146,3 +146,16 @@ Contact: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org
> Description:
> Deletes the named region. A region must be unbound from the
> region driver before being deleted.
> +
> +What: /sys/bus/cxl/devices/decoderX.Y/regionX.Y:Z/verify
> +Date: June, 2021
> +KernelVersion: v5.14
> +Contact: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org
> +Description:
Doing 'what' to this file causes to this to happen?
You want to state that "Reading this file instructs..."
> + Instructs the kernel to verify that the regionX.Y:Z is properly
> + configured and provide more detailed information about
> + configuration errors. A value of 0 indicates the region is
> + properly configured and ready to bind, otherwise a negative
> + integer is returned describing the first error found in the
> + configuration. A verified region can still fail binding due to
> + lack of resources.
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/region.c b/drivers/cxl/region.c
> index 1f47bc17bd50..ea1ac848c713 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/region.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/region.c
> @@ -20,11 +20,31 @@
> * relationship between decoder and region when the region is interleaved.
> */
>
> -static void cxl_region_release(struct device *dev);
> +static ssize_t verify_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "0");
> +}
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(verify);
> +
> +static struct attribute *region_attrs[] = {
> + &dev_attr_verify.attr,
> + NULL,
> +};
>
> +static const struct attribute_group region_group = {
> + .attrs = region_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group *region_groups[] = {
> + ®ion_group,
> +};
> +
> +static void cxl_region_release(struct device *dev);
> static const struct device_type cxl_region_type = {
> .name = "cxl_region",
> .release = cxl_region_release,
> + .groups = region_groups,
> };
>
> static struct cxl_region *to_cxl_region(struct device *dev)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-11 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-10 18:57 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Region Creation Ben Widawsky
2021-06-10 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] cxl/region: Add region creation ABI Ben Widawsky
2021-06-11 13:31 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-16 17:38 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-10 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] cxl/region: Create attribute structure / verify Ben Widawsky
2021-06-11 13:37 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2021-06-12 0:59 ` Dan Williams
2021-06-14 16:12 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-10 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] cxl: Move cxl_memdev conversion helper to mem.h Ben Widawsky
2021-06-10 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] cxl/region: Introduce concept of region configuration Ben Widawsky
2021-06-11 13:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-14 16:18 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-14 16:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-11 13:11 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Region Creation Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-11 13:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-11 16:12 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-12 0:44 ` Dan Williams
2021-06-14 8:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-06-14 16:12 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-14 21:04 ` Dan Williams
2021-06-14 21:54 ` Ben Widawsky
2021-06-14 22:21 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210611143729.00004dbc@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox