On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:10:43 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/02/2019 10:49, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:51:04 +0100
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> We need to find the queue with a specific APQN during the
> >> handling of the interception of the PQAP/AQIC instruction.
> >>
> >> To handle the AP associated device reference count we keep
> >> track of it in the vfio_ap_queue until we put the device.
> >
> > So, the relationship is
> > (struct ap_device)--(driver_data)-->(struct vfio_ap_queue)--(pointer)-->(struct ap_device)
> > ? IOW, a backlink?
> >
> > If so, can't you already set that up during probe?
>
> Will do.
>
> >
> > Or am I confused by the various similar devices again? Maybe a diagram
> > would help...
>
> No you are right.
Good, I was fearing that I was more confused than normal for Fridays ;)
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >> index 900b9cf..2a52c9b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >> @@ -24,6 +24,60 @@
> >> #define VFIO_AP_MDEV_TYPE_HWVIRT "passthrough"
> >> #define VFIO_AP_MDEV_NAME_HWVIRT "VFIO AP Passthrough Device"
> >>
> >> +/**
> >> + * vfio_ap_check_apqn: check if a ap_queue is of a given APQN
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns 1 if we have a match.
> >> + * Otherwise returns 0.
> >> + */
> >> +static int vfio_ap_check_apqn(struct device *dev, void *data)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vfio_ap_queue *q = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> +
> >> + return (q->apqn == *(int *)data);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * vfio_ap_get_queue: Retrieve a queue with a specific APQN
> >> + * @apqn: The queue APQN
> >> + *
> >> + * Retrieve a queue with a specific APQN from the list of the
> >> + * devices associated to the vfio_ap_driver.
> >> + *
> >> + * The vfio_ap_queue has been already associated with the device
> >> + * during the probe.
> >> + * Store the associated device for reference counting
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns the pointer to the associated vfio_ap_queue
> >> + */
> >> +static __attribute__((unused))
> >
> > Eww. Can you get rid of that by reordering or squashing patches?
>
> I did this to avoid posting a very big patch.
> I will of course squash 4 and 5 with patch 6, when the two patches 4 and
> 5 are reviewed.
>
> If you think it brings more clarity to squash all for the next iteration
> I will do.
Let's just see what the patches look like in the end. If a squashed
patch is not too unwieldy, I'd prefer that over those unused
annotations, though.
Hoping for review from others as well ;)
