On 04.12.2024 19:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 06:01:36PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 04.12.2024 10:32, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:11:47PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>> vfio/mdev is the last user of class_compat, and it doesn't use it for
>>>> the intended purpose. See kdoc of class_compat_register():
>>>> Compatibility class are meant as a temporary user-space compatibility
>>>> workaround when converting a family of class devices to a bus devices.
>>>
>>> True, so waht is mdev doing here?
>>>
>>>> In addition it uses only a part of the class_compat functionality.
>>>> So inline the needed functionality, and afterwards all class_compat
>>>> code can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> No functional change intended. Compile-tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> index ed4737de4..a22c49804 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
>>>> #define DRIVER_AUTHOR "NVIDIA Corporation"
>>>> #define DRIVER_DESC "Mediated device Core Driver"
>>>>
>>>> -static struct class_compat *mdev_bus_compat_class;
>>>> +static struct kobject *mdev_bus_kobj;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> static LIST_HEAD(mdev_list);
>>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(mdev_list_lock);
>>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ int mdev_register_parent(struct mdev_parent *parent, struct device *dev,
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> - ret = class_compat_create_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, dev, NULL);
>>>> + ret = sysfs_create_link(mdev_bus_kobj, &dev->kobj, dev_name(dev));
>>>
>>> This feels really wrong, why create a link to a random kobject? Who is
>>> using this kobject link?
>>>
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to create compatibility class link\n");
>>>>
>>>> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ void mdev_unregister_parent(struct mdev_parent *parent)
>>>> dev_info(parent->dev, "MDEV: Unregistering\n");
>>>>
>>>> down_write(&parent->unreg_sem);
>>>> - class_compat_remove_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, parent->dev, NULL);
>>>> + sysfs_remove_link(mdev_bus_kobj, dev_name(parent->dev));
>>>> device_for_each_child(parent->dev, NULL, mdev_device_remove_cb);
>>>> parent_remove_sysfs_files(parent);
>>>> up_write(&parent->unreg_sem);
>>>> @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static int __init mdev_init(void)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> - mdev_bus_compat_class = class_compat_register("mdev_bus");
>>>> - if (!mdev_bus_compat_class) {
>>>> + mdev_bus_kobj = class_pseudo_register("mdev_bus");
>>>
>>> But this isn't a class, so let's not fake it please. Let's fix this
>>> properly, odds are all of this code can just be removed entirely, right?
>>>
>>
>> After I removed class_compat from i2c core, I asked Alex basically the
>> same thing: whether class_compat support can be removed from vfio/mdev too.
>>
>> His reply:
>> I'm afraid we have active userspace tools dependent on
>> /sys/class/mdev_bus currently, libvirt for one. We link mdev parent
>> devices here and I believe it's the only way for userspace to find
>> those parent devices registered for creating mdev devices. If there's a
>> desire to remove class_compat, we might need to add some mdev
>> infrastructure to register the class ourselves to maintain the parent
>> links.
>>
>>
>> It's my understanding that /sys/class/mdev_bus has nothing in common
>> with an actual class, it's just a container for devices which at least
>> partially belong to other classes. And there's user space tools depending
>> on this structure.
>
> That's odd, when this was added, why was it added this way? The
> class_compat stuff is for when classes move around, yet this was always
> done in this way?
>
I can only answer the when: in 2016, with the initial version of vfio/mdev
Kirti is the author, maybe she can provide some background.
> And what tools use this symlink today that can't be updated?
>
According to Alex: libvirt, not clear whether there are more users of the
current sysfs structure
I'm just the messenger here and can't comment on whether/how/who updating
user space.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
