On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:06:42PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 16:31:56 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 01:01:40PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > Yes, it's not trivial, but Jason is now proposing that we consider > > > mixing groups, cdevs, and multiple iommufd_ctxs as invalid. I think > > > this means that regardless of which device calls INFO, there's only one > > > answer (assuming same set of devices opened, all cdev, all within same > > > iommufd_ctx). Based on what I explained about my understanding of INFO2 > > > and Jason agreed to, I think the output would be: > > > > > > flags: NOT_RESETABLE | DEV_ID > > > { > > > { valid devA-id, devA-BDF }, > > > { valid devC-id, devC-BDF }, > > > { valid devD-id, devD-BDF }, > > > { invalid dev-id, devE-BDF }, > > > } > > > > > > Here devB gets dropped because the kernel understands that devB is > > > unopened, affected, and owned. It's therefore not a blocker for > > > hot-reset. > > > > I don't think we want to drop anything because it makes the API > > ill suited for the debugging purpose. > > > > devb should be returned with an invalid dev_id if I understand your > > example. Maybe it should return with -1 as the dev_id instead of 0, to > > make the debugging a bit better. > > > > Userspace should look at only NOT_RESETTABLE to determine if it > > proceeds or not, and it should use the valid dev_id list to iterate > > over the devices it has open to do the config stuff. > > If an affected device is owned, not opened, and not interfering with > the reset, what is it adding to the API to report it for debugging > purposes? It lets it print the entire group of devices, this is the only way something can learn the actual list of all BDFs affected. dev_id can just return 0, we don't need a complex bitmap. Userspace looks at the flag, if !NOT_RESETABLE then it ignores dev_id=0. Jason