On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:07:26PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>On 21.05.14 07:03, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>The patch adds new IOCTL command VFIO_EEH_OP to VFIO PCI device
>>to support EEH functionality for PCI devices, which have been
>>passed from host to guest via VFIO.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>---
>> Documentation/vfio.txt | 6 +-
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h | 10 ++
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 323 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 99 ++++++++++++-
>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 43 ++++++
>> 5 files changed, 474 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/Documentation/vfio.txt b/Documentation/vfio.txt
>>index b9ca023..bb17ec7 100644
>>--- a/Documentation/vfio.txt
>>+++ b/Documentation/vfio.txt
>>@@ -305,7 +305,10 @@ faster, the map/unmap handling has been implemented in real mode which provides
>> an excellent performance which has limitations such as inability to do
>> locked pages accounting in real time.
>>-So 3 additional ioctls have been added:
>>+4) PPC64 guests detect PCI errors and recover from them via EEH RTAS services,
>>+which works on the basis of additional ioctl command VFIO_EEH_OP.
>>+
>>+So 4 additional ioctls have been added:
>> VFIO_IOMMU_SPAPR_TCE_GET_INFO - returns the size and the start
>> of the DMA window on the PCI bus.
>>@@ -316,6 +319,7 @@ So 3 additional ioctls have been added:
>> VFIO_IOMMU_DISABLE - disables the container.
>>+ VFIO_EEH_OP - EEH dependent operations
>
>Please document exactly what the ioctl does. In an ideal world, a
>VFIO user will just look at the documentation and be able to write a
>program against the API with it.
>
Ok. I'll amend it. Also, I'll split it to 5 ioctl commands in next revision.
>> The code flow from the example above should be slightly changed:
>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>index 34a2d83..93922ef 100644
>>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>@@ -305,6 +305,16 @@ void eeh_add_device_late(struct pci_dev *);
>> void eeh_add_device_tree_late(struct pci_bus *);
>> void eeh_add_sysfs_files(struct pci_bus *);
>> void eeh_remove_device(struct pci_dev *);
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+int eeh_vfio_open(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>+void eeh_vfio_release(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>+int eeh_vfio_set_pe_option(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option, int *retval);
>>+int eeh_vfio_get_pe_addr(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option,
>>+ int *retval, int *info);
>>+int eeh_vfio_get_pe_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int *retval, int *state);
>>+int eeh_vfio_reset_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option, int *retval);
>>+int eeh_vfio_configure_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev, int *retval);
>>+#endif
>> /**
>> * EEH_POSSIBLE_ERROR() -- test for possible MMIO failure.
>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
>>index 9c6b899..2aaf90e 100644
>>--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
>>@@ -1098,6 +1098,329 @@ void eeh_remove_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> edev->mode &= ~EEH_DEV_SYSFS;
>> }
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+int eeh_vfio_open(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>
>Why vfio? Also that config option will not be set if vfio is compiled
>as a module.
>
The interface is expected to be used by VFIO-PCI. I'll change the function
names to following ones in next revision. No "VFIO" will be seen :-)
eeh_dev_open();
eeh_dev_release();
static eeh_dev_check();
eeh_pe_set_option();
eeh_pe_get_addr();
eeh_pe_get_state();
eeh_pe_reset();
eeh_pe_configure();
Yeah, "#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH" can be removed safely in next revision.
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+
>>+ /* No PCI device ? */
>>+ if (!pdev)
>>+ return -ENODEV;
>>+
>>+ /* No EEH device ? */
>>+ edev = pci_dev_to_eeh_dev(pdev);
>>+ if (!edev || !edev->pe)
>>+ return -ENODEV;
>>+
>>+ eeh_dev_set_passed(edev, true);
>>+ eeh_pe_set_passed(edev->pe, true);
>>+
>>+ return 0;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_open);
>>+
>>+void eeh_vfio_release(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>+{
>>+ bool release_pe = true;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe = NULL;
>>+ struct eeh_dev *tmp, *edev;
>>+
>>+ /* No PCI device ? */
>>+ if (!pdev)
>>+ return;
>>+
>>+ /* No EEH device ? */
>>+ edev = pci_dev_to_eeh_dev(pdev);
>>+ if (!edev || !eeh_dev_passed(edev) ||
>>+ !edev->pe || !eeh_pe_passed(pe))
>>+ return;
>>+
>>+ /* Release device */
>>+ pe = edev->pe;
>>+ eeh_dev_set_passed(edev, false);
>>+
>>+ /* Release PE */
>>+ eeh_pe_for_each_dev(pe, edev, tmp) {
>>+ if (eeh_dev_passed(edev)) {
>>+ release_pe = false;
>>+ break;
>>+ }
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ if (release_pe)
>>+ eeh_pe_set_passed(pe, false);
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(eeh_vfio_release);
>>+
>>+static int eeh_vfio_check_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>+ struct eeh_dev **pedev,
>>+ struct eeh_pe **ppe)
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+
>>+ /* No device ? */
>>+ if (!pdev)
>>+ return -ENODEV;
>>+
>>+ edev = pci_dev_to_eeh_dev(pdev);
>>+ if (!edev || !eeh_dev_passed(edev) ||
>>+ !edev->pe || !eeh_pe_passed(edev->pe))
>>+ return -ENODEV;
>>+
>>+ if (pedev)
>>+ *pedev = edev;
>>+ if (ppe)
>>+ *ppe = edev->pe;
>>+
>>+ return 0;
>>+}
>>+
>>+int eeh_vfio_set_pe_option(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option, int *retval)
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe;
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ /* Device existing ? */
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_check_dev(pdev, &edev, &pe);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Cannot find device %s\n",
>>+ __func__, pdev ? pci_name(pdev) : "NULL");
>>+ *retval = -7;
>
>What are these? Please use proper kernel internal return values for
>errors. I don't want to see anything even remotely tied to RTAS in
>any of these patches.
>
It's the return value for RTAS call "ibm,set-eeh-option". Yeah, it
makes sense to return kernel internal values for errors and will
amend in next revision.
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /* Invalid option ? */
>>+ if (option < EEH_OPT_DISABLE ||
>>+ option > EEH_OPT_THAW_DMA) {
>
>This is quite confusing to read because it's not obvious what is in
>between these. Just make this a switch() statement that lists the
>allowed options. Gcc will be smart enough to optimize that into a
>bounds check.
>
Ok. Will use "switch()" in next revision.
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Option %d out of range (%d, %d)\n",
>>+ __func__, option, EEH_OPT_DISABLE, EEH_OPT_THAW_DMA);
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ ret = -EINVAL;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ if (option == EEH_OPT_DISABLE ||
>>+ option == EEH_OPT_ENABLE) {
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+ } else {
>>+ if (!eeh_ops || !eeh_ops->set_option) {
>>+ *retval = -7;
>>+ ret = -ENOENT;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ ret = eeh_ops->set_option(pe, option);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Failure %d from backend\n",
>>+ __func__, ret);
>>+ *retval = -1;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+ }
>>+out:
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_set_pe_option);
>>+
>>+int eeh_vfio_get_pe_addr(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option,
>>+ int *retval, int *info)
>>+{
>>+ struct pci_bus *bus;
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe;
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ /* Device existing ? */
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_check_dev(pdev, &edev, &pe);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /* Invalid option ? */
>>+ if (option != 0 && option != 1) {
>
>0? 1? What? Don't these have names? And again, please use a switch()
>for this function.
>
Will have names in next revision and use "switch()", thanks.
>>+ pr_debug("%s: option %d out of range (0, 1)\n",
>>+ __func__, option);
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ ret = -EINVAL;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * Fill result according to option. We don't differentiate
>>+ * PCI bus and device dependent PE here. So all PEs are
>>+ * built in "shared" mode. Also, the PE address has the format
>>+ * of "00BBSS00".
>>+ */
>>+ if (option == 0) {
>>+ bus = eeh_pe_bus_get(pe);
>>+ if (!bus) {
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ ret = -ENODEV;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+ *info = bus->number << 16;
>
>How about positive numbers for the number and negative ones for errors?
>
We needn't carry error numbers by "info" because "retval" or "ret" already
had that information :-)
>>+ } else {
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+ *info = 1;
>>+ }
>>+out:
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_get_pe_addr);
>>+
>>+int eeh_vfio_get_pe_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int *retval, int *state)
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe;
>>+ int result, ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ /* Device existing ? */
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_check_dev(pdev, &edev, &pe);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ if (!eeh_ops || !eeh_ops->get_state) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Unsupported request\n",
>>+ __func__);
>>+ ret = -ENOENT;
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ result = eeh_ops->get_state(pe, NULL);
>>+ if (!(result & EEH_STATE_RESET_ACTIVE) &&
>>+ (result & EEH_STATE_DMA_ENABLED) &&
>>+ (result & EEH_STATE_MMIO_ENABLED))
>>+ *state = 0;
>>+ else if (result & EEH_STATE_RESET_ACTIVE)
>>+ *state = 1;
>>+ else if (!(result & EEH_STATE_RESET_ACTIVE) &&
>>+ !(result & EEH_STATE_DMA_ENABLED) &&
>>+ !(result & EEH_STATE_MMIO_ENABLED))
>>+ *state = 2;
>>+ else if (!(result & EEH_STATE_RESET_ACTIVE) &&
>>+ (result & EEH_STATE_DMA_ENABLED) &&
>>+ !(result & EEH_STATE_MMIO_ENABLED))
>>+ *state = 4;
>>+ else
>>+ *state = 5;
>
>What are these numbers?
>
Will have names in next revision :)
>>+
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+out:
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_get_pe_state);
>>+
>>+int eeh_vfio_reset_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev, int option, int *retval)
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe;
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ /* Device existing ? */
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_check_dev(pdev, &edev, &pe);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /* Invalid option ? */
>>+ if (option != EEH_RESET_DEACTIVATE &&
>>+ option != EEH_RESET_HOT &&
>>+ option != EEH_RESET_FUNDAMENTAL) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Unsupported option %d\n",
>>+ __func__, option);
>>+ ret = -EINVAL;
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ if (!eeh_ops || !eeh_ops->set_option || !eeh_ops->reset) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Unsupported request\n",
>>+ __func__);
>>+ ret = -ENOENT;
>>+ *retval = -7;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ ret = eeh_ops->reset(pe, option);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Failure %d from backend\n",
>>+ __func__, ret);
>>+ *retval = -1;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * The PE is still in frozen state and we need clear that.
>>+ * It's good to clear frozen state after deassert to avoid
>>+ * messy IO access during reset, which might cause recrusive
>
>recursive
>
Thanks.
>>+ * frozen PE.
>>+ */
>>+ if (option == EEH_RESET_DEACTIVATE) {
>>+ ret = eeh_ops->set_option(pe, EEH_OPT_THAW_MMIO);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Cannot enable IO for PHB#%d-PE#%d (%d)\n",
>>+ __func__, pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, ret);
>>+ *retval = -1;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ ret = eeh_ops->set_option(pe, EEH_OPT_THAW_DMA);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Cannot enable DMA for PHB#%d-PE#%d (%d)\n",
>>+ __func__, pe->phb->global_number, pe->addr, ret);
>>+ *retval = -1;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ eeh_pe_state_clear(pe, EEH_PE_ISOLATED);
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+out:
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_reset_pe);
>>+
>>+int eeh_vfio_configure_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev, int *retval)
>>+{
>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>+ struct eeh_pe *pe;
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ /* Device existing ? */
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_check_dev(pdev, &edev, &pe);
>>+ if (ret) {
>>+ *retval = -3;
>>+ goto out;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * The access to PCI config space on VFIO device has some
>>+ * limitations. Part of PCI config space, including BAR
>>+ * registers are not readable and writable. So the guest
>>+ * should have stale values for those registers and we have
>>+ * to restore them in host side.
>
>I don't understand this comment. When is "configure_pe" called in the
>first place? Please provide proper function descriptions for each of
>these exported functions that tell someone who may want to use them
>what they do.
>
Yeah, I'll add the description here (also in Documentation/vfio.txt).
>Also, don't mention VFIO or guests in any function inside this file.
>
Ok. I'll avoid mentioning "VFIO" and "guest".
>>+ */
>>+ eeh_pe_restore_bars(pe);
>>+ *retval = 0;
>>+
>>+out:
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(eeh_vfio_configure_pe);
>>+
>>+#endif /* CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH */
>>+
>> static int proc_eeh_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>> {
>> if (!eeh_enabled()) {
>>diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>index 7ba0424..05c3dde 100644
>>--- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>+++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>> #include <linux/vfio.h>
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+#include <asm/eeh.h>
>>+#endif
>> #include "vfio_pci_private.h"
>>@@ -152,32 +155,57 @@ static void vfio_pci_disable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>> pci_restore_state(pdev);
>> }
>>+static void vfio_eeh_pci_release(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>+{
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+ eeh_vfio_release(pdev);
>>+#endif
>>+}
>>+
>> static void vfio_pci_release(void *device_data)
>> {
>> struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = device_data;
>>- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vdev->refcnt))
>>+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&vdev->refcnt)) {
>>+ vfio_eeh_pci_release(vdev->pdev);
>> vfio_pci_disable(vdev);
>>+ }
>> module_put(THIS_MODULE);
>> }
>>+static int vfio_eeh_pci_open(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>+{
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_open(pdev);
>>+#endif
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+
>> static int vfio_pci_open(void *device_data)
>> {
>> struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = device_data;
>>+ int ret;
>> if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE))
>> return -ENODEV;
>> if (atomic_inc_return(&vdev->refcnt) == 1) {
>>- int ret = vfio_pci_enable(vdev);
>>- if (ret) {
>>- module_put(THIS_MODULE);
>>- return ret;
>>- }
>>+ ret = vfio_pci_enable(vdev);
>>+ if (ret)
>>+ goto error;
>>+
>>+ ret = vfio_eeh_pci_open(vdev->pdev);
>>+ if (ret)
>>+ goto error;
>> }
>> return 0;
>>+error:
>>+ module_put(THIS_MODULE);
>>+ return ret;
>> }
>> static int vfio_pci_get_irq_count(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, int irq_type)
>>@@ -321,6 +349,51 @@ static int vfio_pci_for_each_slot_or_bus(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> return walk.ret;
>> }
>>+static int vfio_eeh_pci_ioctl(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct vfio_eeh_op *info)
>
>I still don't like the idea of that multiplexing ioctl. I don't see
>any benefit in it whatsoever. Just create 5 individual ioctls with
>their own simple interfaces.
>
Ok. Will split in next revision. Thanks.
>Also, this interface has nothing to do with RTAS. So don't sneak in
>RTAS error numbers anywhere ;). It's QEMU's task to convert from
>kernel error codes to RTAS error codes.
>
Ok. Will do in next revision. Thanks for your comments and time, Alex :-)
Thanks,
Gavin
>>+{
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_EEH
>>+ switch (info->op) {
>>+ case VFIO_EEH_OP_SET_OPTION:
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_set_pe_option(pdev,
>>+ info->option.option,
>>+ &info->option.ret);
>>+ break;
>>+ case VFIO_EEH_OP_GET_ADDR:
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_get_pe_addr(pdev,
>>+ info->addr.option,
>>+ &info->addr.ret,
>>+ &info->addr.info);
>>+ break;
>>+ case VFIO_EEH_OP_GET_STATE:
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_get_pe_state(pdev,
>>+ &info->state.ret,
>>+ &info->state.reset_state);
>>+ info->state.cfg_cap = 1;
>>+ info->state.pe_unavail_info = 1000;
>>+ info->state.pe_recovery_info = 0;
>>+ break;
>>+ case VFIO_EEH_OP_PE_RESET:
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_reset_pe(pdev,
>>+ info->reset.option,
>>+ &info->reset.ret);
>>+ break;
>>+ case VFIO_EEH_OP_PE_CONFIG:
>>+ ret = eeh_vfio_configure_pe(pdev,
>>+ &info->config.ret);
>>+ default:
>>+ ret = -EINVAL;
>>+ pr_debug("%s: Cannot handle op#%d\n",
>>+ __func__, info->op);
>>+ }
>>+#else
>>+ ret = -ENOENT;
>>+#endif
>>+
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+
>> static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>> {
>>@@ -682,6 +755,20 @@ hot_reset_release:
>> kfree(groups);
>> return ret;
>>+ } else if (cmd == VFIO_EEH_OP) {
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_op info;
>>+ int ret = 0;
>>+
>>+ minsz = sizeof(info);
>>+ if (copy_from_user(&info, (void __user *)arg, minsz))
>>+ return -EFAULT;
>>+ if (info.argsz < minsz)
>>+ return -EINVAL;
>>+
>>+ ret = vfio_eeh_pci_ioctl(vdev->pdev, &info);
>>+ if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &info, minsz))
>>+ ret = -EFAULT;
>>+ return ret;
>> }
>> return -ENOTTY;
>>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>index cb9023d..518961d 100644
>>--- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>@@ -455,6 +455,49 @@ struct vfio_iommu_spapr_tce_info {
>> #define VFIO_IOMMU_SPAPR_TCE_GET_INFO _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 12)
>>+/*
>>+ * The VFIO operation struct provides way to support EEH functionality
>>+ * for PCI device that is passed from host to guest via VFIO.
>>+ */
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP_SET_OPTION 0
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP_GET_ADDR 1
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP_GET_STATE 2
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP_PE_RESET 3
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP_PE_CONFIG 4
>>+
>>+struct vfio_eeh_op {
>>+ __u32 argsz;
>>+ __u32 op;
>>+
>>+ union {
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_set_option {
>>+ __u32 option;
>>+ __s32 ret;
>>+ } option;
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_pe_addr {
>>+ __u32 option;
>>+ __s32 ret;
>>+ __u32 info;
>>+ } addr;
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_pe_state {
>>+ __s32 ret;
>>+ __u32 reset_state;
>>+ __u32 cfg_cap;
>>+ __u32 pe_unavail_info;
>>+ __u32 pe_recovery_info;
>>+ } state;
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_reset {
>>+ __u32 option;
>>+ __s32 ret;
>>+ } reset;
>>+ struct vfio_eeh_config {
>>+ __s32 ret;
>>+ } config;
>>+ };
>>+};
>>+
>>+#define VFIO_EEH_OP _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 21)
>>+
>> /* ***************************************************************** */
>> #endif /* _UAPIVFIO_H */
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
