Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] s390: ap: tools to find a queue with a specific APQN

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 ;)




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux