Hi Alex, > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 10:36 AM > To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] vfio_pci: refine user config reference in vfio-pci > module > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:59:19 +0800 > Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This patch adds three fields in struct vfio_pci_device to pass the user > > configs of vfio-pci module to some functions which could be common in > > future usage. > > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 24 +++++++++++++++--------- > > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 9 +++++++-- > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > A subtle behavioral difference here is that disable_idle_d3 and > nointxmask are runtime modifiable parameters, if the value is changed > in sysfs the device will adopt the new behavior on its next > transition. After this patch, each device operates in the mode defined > at the time it was probed. Should we maybe refresh the value at key > points, like the user opening or releasing the device so that it tracks > the module parameter? I think we could defend not changing the > behavior of a device while it's in use by a user. Otherwise we might > want to make the module parameter read-only to avoid the > inconsistency. Agreed. I think we can take such assumption that the changing is not allowed during an open/release cycle. Let me add the updates in the next version. > > > [...] > > + vfio_pci_fill_ids(&ids[0]); > > Or just 'ids'. Thanks, yes, let me fix it. > Alex > Regards, Yi Liu
