Re: [PATCH 7/8] vfio: Follow the naming pattern for vfio_group_ioctl_unset_container()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:51:18 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:42:31AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 12:28:07 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:41:30AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:  
> > > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:07 AM
> > > > > 
> > > > > Make it clear that this is the body of the ioctl - keep the mutex outside
> > > > > the function since this function doesn't have and wouldn't benefit from
> > > > > error unwind.    
> > > > 
> > > > but doing so make unset_container() unpair with set_container() and
> > > > be the only one doing additional things in main ioctl body.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd prefer to moving mutex inside unset_container() for better readability.    
> > > 
> > > Yes, I tried both ways and ended up here since adding the goto unwind
> > > was kind of ungainly for this function. Don't mind either way
> > > 
> > > The functions are not intended as strict pairs, they are ioctl
> > > dispatch functions.  
> > 
> > The lockdep annotation seems sufficient, but what about simply
> > prefixing the unset ioctl function with underscores to reinforce the
> > locking requirement, as done by the called function
> > __vfio_group_unset_container()?  Thanks,  
> 
> Could do, but IMHO, that is not a popular convention in VFIO
> (anymore?).
> 
> I've been adding lockdep annotations, not adding __ to indicate
> the function is called with some kind of lock.
> 
> In my tree __vfio_group_get_from_iommu() is the only one left using
> that style. uset_container was turned into
> vfio_container_detatch_group() in aother series
> 
> Conversly we have __vfio_register_dev() which I guess __ indicates is
> internal or wrappered, not some statement about locking. I think this
> has become the more popular usage of the __ generally in the kernel
> 
> So I will do a v2 with the extra goto unwind then
> 
> Are there any other remarks before I do it?

None from me.  The pile of things relying on this series is growing, so
it looks like time to push v2.  Thanks,

Alex




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux