On Wed, 17 May 2023 15:22:27 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:15:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > > +int vfio_iommufd_physical_devid(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> > > +{
> > > + if (vdev->iommufd_device)
> > > + return iommufd_device_to_id(vdev->iommufd_device);
> > > + if (vdev->noiommu_access)
> > > + return iommufd_access_to_id(vdev->noiommu_access);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_iommufd_physical_devid);
> >
> > I think these exemplify that it would be better if both emulated and
> > noiommu use the same iommufd_access pointer. Thanks,
>
> Oh, I mis understood your other remark.. Yeah good question I have to
> study this also
I guess I also missed that this wasn't iommufd_access vs
noiommu_access, it's device vs access, but shouldn't any iommufd_access
pointer provide the devid? I need to go look why we need two different
methods to get a devid... Thanks,
Alex
