Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:06:37 +0100
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     jjherne@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        freude@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com,
        mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        kwankhede@nvidia.com, fiuczy@linux.ibm.com,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 08/18] s390/vfio-ap: allow assignment of unavailable
 AP queues to mdev device
Message-ID: <20220308110637.2e839732.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <eb30a519-5707-717a-ff22-cc3a8e65dc7e@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20220215005040.52697-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
        <20220215005040.52697-9-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
        <97681738-50a1-976d-9f0f-be326eab7202@linux.ibm.com>
        <9ac3908e-06da-6276-d1df-94898918fc5b@linux.ibm.com>
        <20220307142711.5af33ece.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
        <151241e6-3099-4be2-da54-1f0e5cb3a705@linux.ibm.com>
        <20220307181027.29c821b6.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
        <eb30a519-5707-717a-ff22-cc3a8e65dc7e@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 18:45:45 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

[..]
> >>> s/belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix/are fields of the matrix_mdev
> >>> object/  
> >> This is the comment I wrote:
> >>
> >>           /*
> >>            * Comparing an mdev's newly updated apm/aqm with itself would
> >>            * result in a false positive when verifying whether any APQNs
> >>            * are shared; so, if the input apm and aqm belong to the
> >>            * matrix_mdev's matrix, then move on to the next one.
> >>            */
> >>
> >> However, I'd be happy to change it to whatever either of you want.  
> > What ain't obvious for the comment is that "belong to" actually means
> > composition and not association. In other words, there there is no
> > pointer/indirection involved, a pointer that would tell us what matrix
> > does belong to what matrix_mdev, but rather the matrix is just a part
> > of the matrix_mdev object.
> >
> > I don't like 'false positive' either, and whether the apm/aqm is
> > newly updated or not is also redundant and confusing in my opinion. When
> > we check because of inuse there is not updated whatever. IMHO the old
> > message was better than this one.
> >
> > Just my opinion, if you two agree, that this is the way to go, I'm fine
> > with that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Halil  
> 
> Feel free to recommend the verbiage for this comment. I'm not married
> to my comments and am open to anything that helps others to
> understand what is going on here. It seems obvious to me, but I wrote
> the code. Obviously, it is not so obvious based on Jason's comments,
> so maybe someone else can compose a better comment.

/*
* If the input apm and aqm are fields of the matrix_mdev object,
* then move on to the next matrix_mdev.
*/

Regards,
Halil