On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30 2022, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > @@ -1582,6 +1760,10 @@ static int vfio_ioctl_device_feature(struct vfio_device *device,
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > switch (feature.flags & VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MASK) {
> > + case VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MIGRATION:
> > + return vfio_ioctl_device_feature_migration(
> > + device, feature.flags, arg->data,
> > + feature.argsz - minsz);
> > default:
> > if (unlikely(!device->ops->device_feature))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -1597,6 +1779,8 @@ static long vfio_device_fops_unl_ioctl(struct file *filep,
> > struct vfio_device *device = filep->private_data;
> >
> > switch (cmd) {
> > + case VFIO_DEVICE_MIG_SET_STATE:
> > + return vfio_ioctl_mig_set_state(device, (void __user *)arg);
> > case VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE:
> > return vfio_ioctl_device_feature(device, (void __user *)arg);
> > default:
>
> Not really a critique of this patch, but have we considered how mediated
> devices will implement migration?
Yes
> I.e. what parts of the ops will need to be looped through the mdev
> ops?
I've deleted mdev ops in every driver except the intel vgpu, once
Christoph's patch there is merged mdev ops will be almost gone
completely.
mdev drivers now implement normal vfio_device_ops and require nothing
special for migration.
> Do we need to consider the scope of some queries/operations (whole
> device vs subdivisions etc.)? Not trying to distract from the whole new
> interface here, but I think we should have at least an idea.
All vfio operations on the device FD operate on whatever the struct
vfio_device is.
Jason
