On 11/10/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
在 2022/11/10 14:20, Zhu, Lingshan 写道:
On 11/10/2022 11:49 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 5:06 PM Zhu, Lingshan
<lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/9/2022 4:59 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 4:14 PM Zhu, Lingshan
<lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/9/2022 2:51 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 5:42 PM Zhu Lingshan
<lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This series implements features provisioning for ifcvf.
By applying this series, we allow userspace to create
a vDPA device with selected (management device supported)
feature bits and mask out others.
I don't see a direct relationship between the first 3 and the last.
Maybe you can state the reason why the restructure is a must for
the
feature provisioning. Otherwise, we'd better split the series.
When introducing features provisioning ability to ifcvf, there is
a need
to re-create vDPA devices
on a VF with different feature bits.
This seems a requirement even without feature provisioning? Device
could be deleted from the management device anyhow.
Yes, we need this to delete and re-create a vDPA device.
I wonder if we need something that works for -stable.
I can add a fix tag, so these three patches could apply to stable
It's too huge for -stable.
AFAIK, we can move the vdpa_alloc_device() from probe() to dev_add()
and it seems to work?
Yes and this is done in this series and that's why we need these
refactoring code.
I meant there's probably no need to change the association of existing
structure but just do the allocation in dev_add(), then we will have a
patch with much more small changeset that fit for -stable.
Patch 1(ifcvf_base only work on ifcvf_hw) and patch 2(irq functions only
work on ifcvf_hw) are not needed for stable.
I have already done this allocation of ifcvf_adapter which is the
container of struct vdpa_device in dev_add() in Patch 3, this should be
merged to stable.
Patch 3 is huge but necessary, not only allocate ifcvf_adapter in
dev_add(), it also refactors the structures of ifcvf_mgmt_dev and
ifcvf_adapter,
because we need to initialize the VF's hw structure ifcvf_hw(which was a
member of ifcvf_adapter but now should be a member of ifcvf_mgmt_dev) in
probe.
Is it still huge?
Thanks
Thanks
By the way, do you have any comments to the patches?
Thanks,
Zhu Lingshan
Thanks
We create vDPA device from a VF, so without features provisioning
requirements,
we don't need to re-create the vDPA device. But with features
provisioning,
it is a must now.
Thanks
Thakns
When remove a vDPA device, the container of struct vdpa_device
(here is
ifcvf_adapter) is free-ed in
dev_del() interface, so we need to allocate ifcvf_adapter in
dev_add()
than in probe(). That's
why I have re-factored the adapter/mgmt_dev code.
For re-factoring the irq related code and ifcvf_base, let them
work on
struct ifcvf_hw, the
reason is that the adapter is allocated in dev_add(), if we want
theses
functions to work
before dev_add(), like in probe, we need them work on ifcvf_hw
than the
adapter.
Thanks
Zhu Lingshan
Thanks
Please help review
Thanks
Zhu Lingshan (4):
vDPA/ifcvf: ifcvf base layer interfaces work on struct
ifcvf_hw
vDPA/ifcvf: IRQ interfaces work on ifcvf_hw
vDPA/ifcvf: allocate ifcvf_adapter in dev_add()
vDPA/ifcvf: implement features provisioning
drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c | 32 ++-----
drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 10 +-
drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 156
+++++++++++++++-----------------
3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
--
2.31.1
