On 05/15/2018 11:48 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
On 05/15/2018 05:16 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
On 05/15/2018 10:17 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 14/05/2018 21:42, Tony Krowiak 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.
[..]
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7d36fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+/*
+ * Adjunct processor matrix VFIO device driver callbacks.
+ *
+ * Copyright IBM Corp. 2017
+ * Author(s): Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ *
+ */
+#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/vfio.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/ctype.h>
+
+#include "vfio_ap_private.h"
+
+#define VFOP_AP_MDEV_TYPE_HWVIRT "passthrough"
+#define VFIO_AP_MDEV_NAME_HWVIRT "VFIO AP Passthrough Device"
+
+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.
[..]
+int vfio_ap_mdev_register(struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = mdev_register_device(&ap_matrix->device,
&vfio_ap_matrix_ops);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ ap_matrix->available_instances =
AP_MATRIX_MAX_AVAILABLE_INSTANCES;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(struct ap_matrix *ap_matrix)
+{
+ ap_matrix->available_instances--;
What is this for? I don't understand.
To control the number of mediated devices one can create for the
matrix device.
Once the max is reached, the mdev framework will not allow creation
of another
mediated device until one is removed. This counter keeps track of
the number
of instances that can be created. This is documented with the mediated
framework. You may want to take a look at:
Documentation/vfio-mediated-device.txt
Documentation/vfio.txt
Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/vfio.txt
This is what you do in create/remove.
But here in unregister I agree with Halil, it does not seem to be
usefull.
If that is in fact what Halil was asking, then I misinterpreted his
question; I
thought he was asking what the available_instances was used for. You are
correct, this does not belong here although it makes little
difference given
this is called only when the driver, which creates the matrix device,
is unloaded.
It is necessary in the register function to initialize its value, but
I'll
remove it from here.
I questioned the dubious usage of ap_matrix->available_instances
rather than
asking what is the variable for.
I said I'd remove it.
If I've had this deemed damaging I would have asked if it's damaging
in a way
I think it is. For example take my comment on 'KVM: s390: interfaces
to manage
guest's AP matrix'.
I apologize for not being able to read your mind. While this is not
necessarily
necessary, it is not damaging because this is called only when the
driver is being
unloaded. The point is moot, however, because I am removing it.
Regards,
Halil
Regards,
Halil
+ mdev_unregister_device(&ap_matrix->device);
+}
