On 5/4/2023 10:31 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 06:06:37PM -0700, Brett Creeley wrote:+static const struct vfio_device_ops +pds_vfio_ops = { + .name = "pds-vfio", + .init = pds_vfio_init_device, + .release = vfio_pci_core_release_dev, + .open_device = pds_vfio_open_device, + .close_device = vfio_pci_core_close_device, + .ioctl = vfio_pci_core_ioctl, + .device_feature = vfio_pci_core_ioctl_feature, + .read = vfio_pci_core_read, + .write = vfio_pci_core_write, + .mmap = vfio_pci_core_mmap, + .request = vfio_pci_core_request, + .match = vfio_pci_core_match, + .bind_iommufd = vfio_iommufd_physical_bind, + .unbind_iommufd = vfio_iommufd_physical_unbind, + .attach_ioas = vfio_iommufd_physical_attach_ioas, +}; + +const struct vfio_device_ops * +pds_vfio_ops_info(void) +{ + return &pds_vfio_ops; +}No reason for a function like this It is a bit strange to split up the driver files so the registration is in a different file than the ops implementation.
The reason I did this was to separate the pci functionality from the vfio device functionality. There are other similar examples of uses like this. I ended up not changing this for v10 because it was intentional due to the reason I stated above.
Jason
