On 27.05.14 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 18:40 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
The patch adds new IOCTL commands for sPAPR VFIO container device
to support EEH functionality for PCI devices, which have been passed
through from host to somebody else via VFIO.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/vfio.txt | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 20 +++++---
drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_eeh.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 5 ++
drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_eeh.c
[...]
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
static long tce_iommu_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
@@ -283,6 +363,11 @@ static long tce_iommu_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
tce_iommu_disable(container);
mutex_unlock(&container->lock);
return 0;
+ case VFIO_EEH_PE_SET_OPTION:
+ case VFIO_EEH_PE_GET_STATE:
+ case VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET:
+ case VFIO_EEH_PE_CONFIGURE:
+ return tce_iommu_eeh_ioctl(iommu_data, cmd, arg);
This is where it would have really made sense to have a single
VFIO_EEH_OP ioctl with a data structure passed to indicate the sub-op.
AlexG, are you really attached to splitting these out into separate
ioctls?
I don't see the problem. We need to forward 4 ioctls to a separate piece
of code, so we forward 4 ioctls to a separate piece of code :). Putting
them into one ioctl just moves the switch() into another function.
Alex
--
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
