> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:34 PM > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:11:34AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 2:52 AM > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 03:11:30AM -0800, Yi Liu wrote: > > > > @@ -535,7 +542,8 @@ static int vfio_device_fops_release(struct > inode > > > *inode, struct file *filep) > > > > struct vfio_device_file *df = filep->private_data; > > > > struct vfio_device *device = df->device; > > > > > > > > - vfio_device_group_close(df); > > > > + if (!df->is_cdev_device) > > > > + vfio_device_group_close(df); > > > > > > This hunk should go in another patch > > > > Patch 15 or 16? Which one is your preference? To me, I guess patch > > 15 is better since the user may open cdev fds after it. But its release > > op should not call vfio_device_group_close(); > > It should go with the patch that allows creating the struct file > withotu calling vfio_device_group_open() Sure. I moved it to the patch which adds cdev as this patch starts to have df->is_cdev_device == 1. Regards, Yi Liu
