Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:38:11 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Lei Rao <lei.rao@intel.com>,
        kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@fb.com, kch@nvidia.com, sagi@grimberg.me,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, yishaih@nvidia.com,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
        mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        eddie.dong@intel.com, yadong.li@intel.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com,
        Konrad.wilk@oracle.com, stephen@eideticom.com, hang.yuan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] nvme-pci: add function nvme_submit_vf_cmd to
 issue admin commands for VF driver.
Message-ID: <20221206153811.GB2266@lst.de>
References: <20221206055816.292304-1-lei.rao@intel.com> <20221206055816.292304-2-lei.rao@intel.com> <20221206061940.GA6595@lst.de> <Y49HKHP9NrId39iH@ziepe.ca> <20221206135810.GA27689@lst.de> <Y49eObpI7QoSnugu@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y49eObpI7QoSnugu@ziepe.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:22:33AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > controlled functions (which could very well be, and in some designs
> > are, additional PFs and not VFs) by controlling function.  
> 
> In principle PF vs VF doesn't matter much - the question is really TLP
> labeling. If the spec says RID A is the controlling RID and RID B is
> the guest RID, then it doesn't matter if they have a PF/VF
> relationship or PF/PF relationship.

Yes.  Or in fact if you use PASIDs inside a single function.

> We have locking issues in Linux SW connecting different SW drivers for
> things that are not a PF/VF relationship, but perhaps that can be
> solved.

And I think the only reasonable answer is that the entire workflow
must be 100% managed from the controlling function, and the controlled
function is just around for a ride, with the controlling function
enabling/disabling it as needed without ever interacting with software
that directly deals with the controlled function.