Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <b10af1ae-d396-6694-8f1d-4a3769a84494@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:05:26 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vdpa/vp_vdpa : add vdpa tool support in vp_vdpa
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>
Cc:     mst <mst@redhat.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220425062735.172576-2-lulu@redhat.com>
 <CACGkMEtGZqoei6i=LmVrTgNfWM4SpxjQH-8j7BP=EoFO=iqeYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLfguUmEEdJzPTsR9h-N=rVa4ktT8s6=aBsJ_MdRRy24LRyMg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACLfguUmEEdJzPTsR9h-N=rVa4ktT8s6=aBsJ_MdRRy24LRyMg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2022/4/27 09:58, Cindy Lu 写道:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:05 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:27 PM Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> this patch is to add the support for vdpa tool in vp_vdpa
>>> here is the example steps
>>>
>>> modprobe vp_vdpa
>>> modprobe vhost_vdpa
>>> echo 0000:00:06.0>/sys/bus/pci/drivers/virtio-pci/unbind
>>> echo 1af4 1041 > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/vp-vdpa/new_id
>>>
>>> vdpa dev add name vdpa1 mgmtdev pci/0000:00:06.0
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/vdpa/virtio_pci/vp_vdpa.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>   1 file changed, 106 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/virtio_pci/vp_vdpa.c b/drivers/vdpa/virtio_pci/vp_vdpa.c
>>> index cce101e6a940..873402977543 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/virtio_pci/vp_vdpa.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/virtio_pci/vp_vdpa.c
>>> @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ struct vp_vring {
>>>
>>>   struct vp_vdpa {
>>>          struct vdpa_device vdpa;
>>> -       struct virtio_pci_modern_device mdev;
>>> +       /* this is an pointer point to the mdev in vp_vdpa_mgmtdev*/
>>> +       struct virtio_pci_modern_device *mdev;
>> The code can explain itself, so the comment is redundant.
>>
> sure wll remove this.
>>>          struct vp_vring *vring;
>>>          struct vdpa_callback config_cb;
>>>          char msix_name[VP_VDPA_NAME_SIZE];
>>> @@ -41,6 +42,12 @@ struct vp_vdpa {
>>>          int vectors;
>>>   };
>>>
>>> +struct vp_vdpa_mgmtdev {
>>> +       struct vdpa_mgmt_dev mgtdev;
>>> +       struct virtio_pci_modern_device mdev;
>> I think coupling it with mgmt device is probably not good, any reason
>> we can't allocate it independently?
>>
> yes I also think it make code confused,  but we need to init  it in
> static int vp_vdpa_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> and then  pass it to
> static int vp_vdpa_dev_add(struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev, const char *name,
>     const struct vdpa_dev_set_config *add_config)
> the only struct we can use is struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev,  not sure
> if we have
> some better choice ?


I think we can just allocate it and assign it to vdpa_mgmt_dev structure?

struct vp_vdpa_mgmtdev {
     stuct virtio_pci_modern_device *mdev;
};

Thanks


>
>> Thanks
>>
>>> +       struct vp_vdpa *vp_vdpa;
>>> +};