On 09/27/2018 01:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:29:43 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/27/2018 12:42 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 19:16:41 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> + This is how the matrix is configured for Guest2: >>>> + >>>> + echo 5 > assign_adapter >>>> + echo 0x47 > assign_domain >>>> + echo 0xff > assign_domain >>>> + >>>> + This is how the matrix is configured for Guest3: >>>> + >>>> + echo 6 > assign_adapter >>>> + echo 0x47 > assign_domain >>>> + echo 0xff > assign_domain >>>> + >>> >>> I'm curious why this interface didn't adopt the +/- notation invented >>> above for consistency. Too difficult to do rollbacks with a string on >>> entries? >>> >> >> I remember that we did discuss that possibility around v9, but I can't >> tell why did we decide to not implement it. Maybe Tony has an answer. > > IIRC, that was a discussion on the base ap driver interfaces rather > than vfio-ap. > >> >> Anyway, if we were to do that, we would use different attribute names >> (e.g. just domain_mask, or something similar instead of >> (assign|unassign)_xxx). So I think such an interface can still be added >> on top of the existing one. Having that said having multiple interfaces >> for the very same thing is usually not so nice IMHO. > > Nod to all of your points. > > As we do the configuration while the guest is not running anyway, the > different interfaces probably do not make that much difference in > practice. It should be fine to stick to the current interface for now > and only add a new one if we really think it is significantly better. Tony, can you maybe provide a quick on-top patch that clarifies Alex comments regarding the documentation? (State that is is big endian, fixup the small things etc). I can then either fold it in or provide it as an on top patch depending on how much has changed.
