On Tue, Feb 01 2022, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:06:51PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 30 2022, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > @@ -1582,6 +1760,10 @@ static int vfio_ioctl_device_feature(struct vfio_device *device,
>> > return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> > switch (feature.flags & VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MASK) {
>> > + case VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MIGRATION:
>> > + return vfio_ioctl_device_feature_migration(
>> > + device, feature.flags, arg->data,
>> > + feature.argsz - minsz);
>> > default:
>> > if (unlikely(!device->ops->device_feature))
>> > return -EINVAL;
>> > @@ -1597,6 +1779,8 @@ static long vfio_device_fops_unl_ioctl(struct file *filep,
>> > struct vfio_device *device = filep->private_data;
>> >
>> > switch (cmd) {
>> > + case VFIO_DEVICE_MIG_SET_STATE:
>> > + return vfio_ioctl_mig_set_state(device, (void __user *)arg);
>> > case VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE:
>> > return vfio_ioctl_device_feature(device, (void __user *)arg);
>> > default:
>>
>> Not really a critique of this patch, but have we considered how mediated
>> devices will implement migration?
>
> Yes
>
>> I.e. what parts of the ops will need to be looped through the mdev
>> ops?
>
> I've deleted mdev ops in every driver except the intel vgpu, once
> Christoph's patch there is merged mdev ops will be almost gone
> completely.
Ok, if there's nothing left to do, that's fine. (I'm assuming that the
Intel vgpu patch is on its way in? I usually don't keep track of things
I'm not directly involved with.)
