On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:20:26PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> +static int idxd_vdcm_probe(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> +{
> + struct vdcm_idxd *vidxd;
> + struct vdcm_idxd_type *type;
> + struct device *dev, *parent;
> + struct idxd_device *idxd;
> + bool ims_map[VIDXD_MAX_MSIX_VECS];
> + int rc;
> +
> + parent = mdev_parent_dev(mdev);
> + idxd = dev_get_drvdata(parent);
> + dev = &mdev->dev;
> + mdev_set_iommu_device(mdev, parent);
> + type = idxd_vdcm_get_type(mdev);
This makes my head hurt. There is a kref guarding
mdev_unregister_device() but probe reaches into the parent idxd
device's drvdata? I'm skeptical any of this is locked right
> +static void idxd_vdcm_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> +{
> + struct vdcm_idxd *vidxd = dev_get_drvdata(&mdev->dev);
> + struct idxd_wq *wq = vidxd->wq;
> +
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vidxd->vdev);
> + mdev_irqs_free(mdev);
> + mutex_lock(&wq->wq_lock);
> + idxd_wq_put(wq);
> + mutex_unlock(&wq->wq_lock);
It is also really weird to see something called put that requires the
caller to hold a mutex... Don't use refcount language for something
tha tis not acting like any sort of refcount.
> +static int idxd_vdcm_open(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void idxd_vdcm_close(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> +{
> + struct vdcm_idxd *vidxd = vdev_to_vidxd(vdev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&vidxd->dev_lock);
> + idxd_vdcm_set_irqs(vidxd, VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE | VFIO_IRQ_SET_ACTION_TRIGGER,
> + VFIO_PCI_MSIX_IRQ_INDEX, 0, 0, NULL);
> +
> + /* Re-initialize the VIDXD to a pristine state for re-use */
> + vidxd_init(vidxd);
> + mutex_unlock(&vidxd->dev_lock);
This is split up weird. open should be doing basic init stuff and
close should just be doing the reset stuff..
Jason
