On 31.07.2024 18:13, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 05:58:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 31.07.2024 17:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 07:41:18PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c >>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c >>>> @@ -172,6 +172,16 @@ int vpci_assign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>>> >>>> return rc; >>>> } >>>> + >>>> +int vpci_reset_device_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, >>>> + uint32_t reset_type) >>> >>> There's probably no use in passing reset_type to >>> vpci_reset_device_state() if it's ignored? >> >> I consider this forward-looking. It seems rather unlikely that in the >> longer run the reset type doesn't matter. > > I'm fine with having it in the hypercall interface, but passing it to > vpci_reset_device_state() can be done once there's a purpose for it, > and it won't change any public facing interface.
Jiqian, just to clarify: I'm okay either way. Jan
