Re: [PATCH v5 05/13] s390: vfio-ap: register matrix device with VFIO mdev framework

Cornelia Huck
2018-05-17T07:44:54Z

On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:42:18 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 05/11/2018 01:18 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 05/07/2018 05:11 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> >> Registers the matrix device created by the VFIO AP device
> >> driver with the VFIO mediated device framework.
> >> Registering the matrix device will create the sysfs
> >> structures needed to create mediated matrix devices
> >> each of which will be used to configure the AP matrix
> >> for a guest and connect it to the VFIO AP device driver.

> >> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct
> >> mdev_device *mdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix = to_ap_matrix(mdev_parent_dev(mdev));
> >> +
> >> + ap_matrix->available_instances--;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix = to_ap_matrix(mdev_parent_dev(mdev));
> >> +
> >> + ap_matrix->available_instances++;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > The above functions seem to be called with the lock of this
> > auto-generated
> > mdev parent device held. That's why we don't have to care about
> > synchronization
> > ourselves, right?
>
> I would assume as much. The comments for the 'struct mdev_parent_ops' in
> include/linux/mdev.h do not mention anything about synchronization, nor
> did I
> see any locking or synchronization in the vfio_ccw implementation after
> which
> I modeled my code, so frankly it is something I did not consider.
>
> >
> >
> > A small comment in the code could be helpful for mdev non-experts.
> > Hell, I would
> > even consider documenting it for all mdev -- took me some time to
> > figure out.
>
> You may want to bring this up with the VFIO mdev maintainers, but I'd be
> happy to
> include a comment in the functions in question if you think it important.

Important note: There's currently a patch on list that removes the mdev
parent mutex, and it seems there was never intended to be any
serialization in that place by the mdev core. (Look for "vfio/mdev:
Check globally for duplicate devices".)