On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:42:07AM -0400, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 4/27/22 10:04 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 04:08:37PM -0400, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> >
> > > +static int vfio_pci_zdev_group_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > > + unsigned long action, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zpci_dev *zdev = container_of(nb, struct zpci_dev, nb);
> > > + int (*fn)(struct zpci_dev *zdev, struct kvm *kvm);
> > > + int rc = NOTIFY_OK;
> > > +
> > > + if (action == VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM) {
> > > + if (!zdev)
> > > + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > > +
> > > + fn = symbol_get(kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm);
> > > + if (!fn)
> > > + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > > +
> > > + if (fn(zdev, (struct kvm *)data))
> > > + rc = NOTIFY_BAD;
> > > +
> > > + symbol_put(kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm);
> >
> > Is it possible this function can be in statically linked arch code?
> >
> > Or, actually, is zPCI useful anyhow without kvm ie can you just have a
> > direct dependency here?
> >
>
> zPCI devices (zpci_dev) exist regardless of whether kvm is configured or
> not, and you can e.g. bind the associated PCI device to vfio-pci when KVM is
> not configured (or module not loaded) and get the existing vfio-pci-zdev
> extensions for that device (extra VFIO_DEVICE_INFO response data). Making a
> direct dependency on KVM would remove that; this was discussed in a prior
> version because this extra info is not used today outside of a KVM usecase
> are not specific to kvm that need vfio-pci-zdev).
I'm a bit confused, what is the drawback of just having a direct
symbol dependency here? It means vfio loads a little extra kernel
module code, but is that really a big worry given almost all vfio
users on s390 will be using it with kvm?
Or is there some technical blocker? (circular dep or something?)
Jason
