----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Yi Liu" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>, joro@xxxxxxxxxx, "kevin tian" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "robin murphy" > <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>, cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx, "eric auger" <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>, nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx, "kvm" > <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "chao p peng" <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "yi y sun" > <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx, jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx, "shameerali kolothum thodi" > <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx>, lulu@xxxxxxxxxx, "suravee suthikulpanit" <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>, > intel-gvt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "linux-s390" <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Michael Ellerman" <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:17:46 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/15] kvm/vfio: Accept vfio device file from userspace > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 04:42:35PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> A device file opened through a group could be passed through this >> interface though, right? > > Yes, I think so > >> Do we just chalk that up to user error? Maybe the SPAPR extension >> at least needs to be documented as relying on registering groups >> rather than devices. > > The way these APIs work is you have to pass the same FD to all of > them. The SPAPR stuff is no different, if you used a cdev with > KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_ADD then you have to use the same cdev fd with the > SPAPR group_fd. Yi just didn't rename it. > > It is weird, but logically self consistent, I think. > >> > I'm still thinking about proposing to just delete all this SPAPR >> > stuff. Power still hasn't had the patches applied to make it work >> > again so it seems to all be dead. >> >> There's been some off-list discussion about at least fixing SPAPR >> support, but yes, it either needs to get some love or we ought to think >> about its future. Thanks, > > The patches exist, they just need to be applied AFAIK. If the people > responsible can't care enough about this to even do that then I find > it hard to care at all about the state of SPAPR. > > Jason I've been discussing the state of the patches offline, apologies for the delay in checking in here. I'll be taking over SPAPR support going forward, as we need it for our product line. My current thoughts are to rebase / fix and test the patches that were already generated, to at least get support reenabled, then we can coordinate on further changes needed to maintain the support going forward. I should have a rebased patchset ready later this week. Thank you!
