> From: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com>
> 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 <j...@nvidia.com>
> > > 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

Reply via email to