On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:15:20AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:43 PM > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:33:09PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > > > > Thanks. So this new _INFO only reports a limited scope instead of > > > the full list of affected devices. Also, it is not static scope since device > > > may be opened just after the _INFO returns. > > > > Yes, it would be simplest for qemu to do the query after it gains a > > new dev_id and then it can add the new dev_id with the correct reset > > group. > > I see. QEMU can decide. For now, it seems like QEMU doesn't store > such the info return by the existing _INFO ioctl. It is used in the hot > reset helper and freed before it returns. Though, I'm not sure whether > QEMU will store the dev_id info returned by the new _INFO. Perhaps > Alex can give some guidance. That seems a bit confusing, qemu should take the reset group information and encode it so that the guest can know it as well. If all it does is blindly invoke the hot_reset with the right parameters then what was the point of all this discussion? > btw. Another question about this new _INFO ioctl. If there are affected > devices that have not been bound to vfio driver yet, should this new _INFO > ioctl fail all the same with EPERM? Yeah, it should EPERM the same as the normal hot reset if it can't marshal the device list. Jason
