[PATCH v7 3/3] drivers/vfio: EEH support for VFIO PCI device

Gavin Shan gwshan at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu May 29 09:37:53 EST 2014

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:40:26AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>On 28.05.14 18:17, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 13:37 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>On 28.05.14 02:57, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 02:44 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>On 28.05.14 02:39, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 00:49 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>On 27.05.14 20:15, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 18:40 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>The patch adds new IOCTL commands for sPAPR VFIO container device
>>>>>>>>>to support EEH functionality for PCI devices, which have been passed
>>>>>>>>>through from host to somebody else via VFIO.
>>>>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>     Documentation/vfio.txt              | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile           |  1 +
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c         | 20 +++++---
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_eeh.c     | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h |  5 ++
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     include/uapi/linux/vfio.h           | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     7 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_eeh.c
>>>>>>>>>+	return ret;
>>>>>>>>>     static long tce_iommu_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
>>>>>>>>>     				 unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>>>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>>>>@@ -283,6 +363,11 @@ static long tce_iommu_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
>>>>>>>>>     		tce_iommu_disable(container);
>>>>>>>>>     		mutex_unlock(&container->lock);
>>>>>>>>>     		return 0;
>>>>>>>>>+	case VFIO_EEH_PE_SET_OPTION:
>>>>>>>>>+	case VFIO_EEH_PE_GET_STATE:
>>>>>>>>>+	case VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET:
>>>>>>>>>+	case VFIO_EEH_PE_CONFIGURE:
>>>>>>>>>+		return tce_iommu_eeh_ioctl(iommu_data, cmd, arg);
>>>>>>>>This is where it would have really made sense to have a single
>>>>>>>>VFIO_EEH_OP ioctl with a data structure passed to indicate the sub-op.
>>>>>>>>AlexG, are you really attached to splitting these out into separate
>>>>>>>I don't see the problem. We need to forward 4 ioctls to a separate piece
>>>>>>>of code, so we forward 4 ioctls to a separate piece of code :). Putting
>>>>>>>them into one ioctl just moves the switch() into another function.
>>>>>>And uses an extra 3 ioctl numbers and gives us extra things to update if
>>>>>>we ever need to add more ioctls, etc.  ioctl numbers are an address
>>>>>>space, how much address space do we really want to give to EEH?  It's
>>>>>>not a big difference, but I don't think it's completely even either.
>>>>>Yes, that's the point. I by far prefer to have you push back on anyone
>>>>>who introduces useless ioctls rather than have a separate EEH number
>>>>>space that people can just throw anything in they like ;).
>>>>Well, I appreciate that, but having them as separate ioctls doesn't
>>>>really prevent that either.  Any one of these 4 could be set to take a
>>>>sub-option to extend and contort the EEH interface.  The only way to
>>>>prevent that would be to avoid the argsz+flags hack that make the ioctl
>>>>extendable.  Thanks,
>>>Sure, that's what patch review is about. I'm really more concerned about
>>>whose court the number space is in - you or Gavin. If we're talking
>>>about top level ioctls you will care a lot more.
>>>But I'm not religious about this. You're the VFIO maintainer, so it's
>>>your call. I just personally cringe when I see an ioctl that gets an
>>>"opcode" and a "parameter" argument where the "parameter" argument is a
>>>union with one struct for each opcode.
>>Well, what would it look like...
>>struct vfio_eeh_pe_op {
>>	__u32 argsz;
>>	__u32 flags;
>>	__u32 op;
>>Couldn't every single one of these be a separate "op"?  Are there any
>>cases where we can't use the ioctl return value?
>>It doesn't look that bad to me, what am I missing?  Thanks,
>Yup, that looks well to me as well :)


I'll include this in next revision. Thanks, Alex.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list