On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55:29AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:

quoted

On 22.05.14 10:23, Gavin Shan wrote:

.../...

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
index cb9023d..ef55682 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h

@@ -455,6 +455,59 @@ struct vfio_iommu_spapr_tce_info {
 #define VFIO_IOMMU_SPAPR_TCE_GET_INFO	_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 12)
+/*
+ * EEH functionality can be enabled or disabled on one specific device.
+ * Also, the DMA or IO frozen state can be removed from the frozen PE
+ * if required.
+ */
+struct vfio_eeh_pe_set_option {
+	__u32 argsz;

What is this argsz thing? Is this your way of maintaining backwards
compatibility when we introduce new fields? A new field will change
the ioctl number, so I don't think that makes a lot of sense :).

Just make the ioctl have a u32 as incoming argument. No fancy
structs, no complicated code.

The same applies for a number of structs below.

ok. Will do in next revision.

Rechecked include/uapi/linux/vfio.h, the data struct for each ioctl command
always has "argsz". I guess it was used as checker by Alex.W. Do you really
want remove "argsz" ?

quoted

quoted

+	__u32 option;
+};
+
+#define VFIO_EEH_PE_SET_OPTION		_IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 21)
+
+/*
+ * Each EEH PE should have unique address to be identified. The command
+ * helps to retrieve the address and the sharing mode of the PE.
+ */
+struct vfio_eeh_pe_get_addr {
+	__u32 argsz;
+	__u32 option;
+	__u32 info;

Any particular reason you need the info field? Can't the return value
of the ioctl hold this? Then you only have a single u32 argument left
to the ioctl again.

ok. Will do in next revision.

If we eventually remove "argsz" and let ioctl() return value to hold
information (or negative number for errors), we don't need any data
struct because the 3rd parameter of ioctl() would be used as input
and I only need one input parameter. Do you want see this ?

Hopefully, Alex.W saw this and hasn't objections :)

Thanks,
Gavin