On 2024/8/1 14:49, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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. Thank you very much! You dispelled my concerns. I will remove reset_type in next version.
> > Jan -- Best regards, Jiqian Chen.
