On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:29:37 -0500 Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/11/21 10:47 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > On 2/2/2021 7:10 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:06:59PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> > >>> On the other side, we have the zdev support, which both requires s390 > >>> and applies to any pci device on s390. > >> Is there a reason why CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV exists? Why not just always > >> return the s390 specific data in VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO if running on > >> s390? > >> > >> It would be like returning data from ACPI on other platforms. > > > > Agree. > > > > all agree that I remove it ? > > I did some archives digging on the discussions around > CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV and whether we should/should not have a Kconfig > switch around this; it was something that was carried over various > attempts to get the zdev support upstream, but I can't really find (or > think of) a compelling reason that a Kconfig switch must be kept for it. > The bottom line is if you're on s390, you really want zdev support. > > So: I don't have an objection so long as the net result is that > vfio_pci_zdev.o is always built in to vfio-pci(-core) for s390. Yes, I also don't expect presence of the zdev stuff to confuse any older userspace. So, let's just drop CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV and use CONFIG_S390 in lieu of it (not changing the file name).
