From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: alex.williamson@redhat.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
schnelle@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
oohall@gmail.com, cohuck@redhat.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] PCI/IOV: Mark VFs as not implementing MSE bit
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 19:39:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200910003916.GA741660@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38f95349-237e-34e2-66ef-e626cd4aec25@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:10:02PM -0400, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 9/3/20 12:41 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > - How do we decide whether to use dev_flags vs a bitfield like
> > dev->is_virtfn? The latter seems simpler unless there's a reason
> > to use dev_flags. If there's a reason, maybe we could add a
> > comment at pci_dev_flags for future reference.
>
> Something like:
>
> /*
> * Device does not implement PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY - this is true for any
> * device marked is_virtfn, but is also true for any VF passed-through
> * a lower-level hypervisor where emulation of the Memory Space Enable
> * bit was not provided.
> */
> PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_COMMAND_MEMORY = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << 12),
Sorry, I wasn't clear about this. I was trying to suggest that if
there are some situations where we need to use pci_dev_flags instead
of a bitfield, it would be useful to have a generic comment to help
decide between them.
I don't know that there *is* a good reason, and unless somebody can
think of one, I'd like to get rid of pci_dev_flags completely and
convert them all to bitfields.
Given that, my preference would be to just add a new bitfield,
something like this:
struct pci_dev {
...
unsigned int no_command_memory:1; /* No PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-10 2:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-02 19:46 [PATCH v4 0/3] vfio/pci: Restore MMIO access for s390 detached VFs Matthew Rosato
2020-09-02 19:46 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] PCI/IOV: Mark VFs as not implementing MSE bit Matthew Rosato
2020-09-03 16:41 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-09-03 17:10 ` Matthew Rosato
2020-09-09 23:07 ` Alex Williamson
2020-09-10 0:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2020-09-02 19:46 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] s390/pci: Mark all " Matthew Rosato
2020-09-02 19:46 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] vfio/pci: Decouple MSE bit checks from is_virtfn Matthew Rosato
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=20200910003916.GA741660@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.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