> From: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 6:35 AM
>
> +void pds_vfio_unregister_client_cmd(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
> +{
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = pds_vfio_to_pci_dev(pds_vfio);
> + int err;
> +
> + err = pds_client_unregister(pci_physfn(pdev), pds_vfio->client_id);
> + if (err)
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unregister from DSC failed: %pe\n",
> + ERR_PTR(err));
Why using ERR_PTR() here? it looks a common pattern used cross
this series.
> @@ -34,12 +34,13 @@ enum pds_core_vif_types {
>
> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_CORE_STR "Core"
> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR "vDPA"
> -#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR "VFio"
> +#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR "vfio"
> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_ETH_STR "Eth"
> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_RDMA_STR "RDMA"
> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "LM"
>
> #define PDS_VDPA_DEV_NAME "."
> PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR
> +#define PDS_LM_DEV_NAME PDS_CORE_DRV_NAME "."
> PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "." PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR
>
then should the name be changed to PDS_VFIO_LM_DEV_NAME?
Or is mentioning *LM* important? what would be the problem to just
use "pds_core.vfio"?
