On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:47:27PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:19:13AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 05/03/2018 11:43, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:43:09PM +0800, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:06:56PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>> On 01/03/2018 11:33, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > >>>> + pci_device_notify_iommu(pdev, PCI_NTY_DEV_ADD);
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> pci_setup_sva_ops(pdev, &vfio_pci_sva_ops);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> return;
> > >>>> @@ -3134,6 +3136,7 @@ static void vfio_exitfn(PCIDevice *pdev)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> + pci_device_notify_iommu(pdev, PCI_NTY_DEV_DEL);
> > >>>
> > >>> Please make the names longer: PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_DEVICE_ADDED and
> > >>> PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_DEVICE_REMOVED. (This is independent of my other
> > >>> remark, about doing this in generic PCI code for all devices that
> > >>> register SVA ops).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the suggestion, will appply.
> > >
> > > Isn't the name too generic if it's tailored for VFIO only? Would
> > > something like PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_VFIO_ADD be a bit better?
> >
> > I don't think it's for VFIO only. It's just that VFIO is the only
> > caller of pci_setup_sva_ops.
>
> Indeed. E.g., we can have emulated devices that also want to provide
> the SVA ops.
Excatly as Paolo commented. ^_^
Thanks,
Yi Liu
