On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:56:31 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1732,10 +1705,28 @@ static int vfio_pci_bus_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> static int vfio_pci_vf_init(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
> + struct vfio_pci_core_device *cur;
> + struct pci_dev *physfn;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!pdev->is_physfn)
> + if (!pdev->is_physfn) {
> + /*
> + * If this VF was created by our vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure()
> + * then we can find the PF vfio_pci_core_device now, and due to
> + * the locking in pci_disable_sriov() it cannot change until
> + * this VF device driver is removed.
> + */
> + physfn = pci_physfn(vdev->pdev);
> + mutex_lock(&vfio_pci_sriov_pfs_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry (cur, &vfio_pci_sriov_pfs, sriov_pfs_item) {
> + if (cur->pdev == physfn) {
> + vdev->sriov_pf_core_dev = cur;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&vfio_pci_sriov_pfs_mutex);
> return 0;
> + }
>
> vdev->vf_token = kzalloc(sizeof(*vdev->vf_token), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!vdev->vf_token)
One more comment on final review; are we equating !is_physfn to
is_virtfn above? This branch was originally meant to kick out both VFs
and non-SRIOV PFs. Calling pci_physfn() on a !is_virtfn device will
return itself, so we should never find a list match, but we also don't
need to look for a match for !is_virtfn, so it's a bit confusing and
slightly inefficient. Should the new code be added in a separate
is_virtfn branch above the existing !is_physfn test? Thanks,
Alex
