On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:22:00 +0530 Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/29/2021 12:26 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 23:19:54 +0530 > > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 6/26/2021 2:56 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> The sample mtty mdev driver doesn't actually enforce the number of > >>> device instances it claims are available. Implement this properly. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Applies to vfio next branch + Jason's atomic conversion > >>> > >> > >> > >> Does this need to be on top of Jason's patch? > > > > Yes, see immediately above. > > > >> Patch to use mdev_used_ports is reverted here, can it be changed from > >> mdev_devices_list to mdev_avail_ports atomic variable? > > > > It doesn't revert Jason's change, it builds on it. The patches could > > we squashed, but there's no bug in Jason's patch that we're trying to > > avoid exposing, so I don't see why we'd do that. > > > > 'Squashed' is the correct word that 'revert', my bad. > > >> Change here to use atomic variable looks good to me. > >> > >> Reviewed by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks! It was Jason's patch[1] that converted to use an atomic > > though, so I'm slightly confused if this R-b is for the patch below, > > Jason's patch, or both. Thanks, > > I liked 'mdev_avail_ports' approach than 'mdev_used_ports' approach > here. This R-b is for below patch. Got it, added. Thanks Kirti!
