Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] s390: vfio_ap: link the vfio_ap devices to the vfio_ap bus subsystem

[Tony Krowiak]

On 2/14/19 12:36 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 17:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:47:30 +0100 Pierre Morel
> > <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/02/2019 15:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:51:01 +0100 Pierre Morel
> > > > <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c @@ -24,8 +24,9 @@
> > > > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > > > >
> > > > > static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv;
> > > > >
> > > > > -static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = { -ÂÂÂ .name =
> > > > > VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME, +struct matrix_driver { +ÂÂÂ struct
> > > > > device_driver drv; +ÂÂÂ int device_count;
> > > >
> > > > This counter basically ensures that at most one device may bind
> > > > with this driver... you'd still have that device on the bus,
> > > > though.
> > >
> > > yes, this is what is wanted: this driver can only support one
> > > device. May be another matrix driver can support one or more other
> > > devices.
> > >
> > > I should update comment message my be.
> > >
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
> > >
> > > > > -ÂÂÂ matrix_dev->device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type; 
> > > > > dev_set_name(&matrix_dev->device, "%s", VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME); 
> > > > > matrix_dev->device.parent = root_device; +
> > > > > matrix_dev->device.bus = &matrix_bus; matrix_dev->device.release = 
> > > > > vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release; -
> > > > > matrix_dev->device.driver = &vfio_ap_drv.driver; +
> > > > > matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv = &vfio_ap_drv;
> > > >
> > > > Can't you get that structure through matrix_dev->device.driver
> > > > instead when you need it in the function below?
> > >
> > > Not anymore. We have two different drivers and devices matrix_drv
> > > <-> matrix_dev and vfio_ap_drv <-> ap_devices
> > >
> > > The driver behind the matrix_dev->dev->driver is matrix_drv what is
> > > needed here is vfio_ap_drv.
> >
> > Wait, we had tacked a driver for ap devices unto a matrix device,
> > which is not on the ap bus?

It's really a bit more complicated than that. Without going into a
lengthy description of the history of AP passthrough support, suffice it
to say that we needed a device to serve as the parent of each mediated
device used to configure a matrix of AP adapter IDs and domain indexes
identifying the devices to which a guest would be granted access. The
AP devices themselves are attached to the AP bus, but the matrix device
is an artificial (virtual?) device whose sole purpose in life is to
serve as an anchor for the mediated devices whose sysfs interfaces are
created and managed by the vfio_ap device driver. The matrix device
itself is created by the vfio_ap device driver - when it is initialized 
- for that purpose. In hindsight, maybe there was a better way to
implement this, but neither this patch nor this discussion belongs in
this series. It distracts from discussion of interrupt support which is
the sole purpose of the patch series.

> ...yes -(
>
> > Maybe that's what trips libudev? >
> > (And reading further in the current code, it seems we clear that 
> > structure _after_ the matrix device had been setup, so how can that 
> > even work? Where am I confused?)
>
> On device_register there were no bus, so the core just do not look for a 
> driver and this field was nor tested nor overwritten.
>
> > > > > ret = device_register(&matrix_dev->device); if (ret) goto
> > > > > matrix_reg_err;
> > > > >
> > > > > +ÂÂÂ ret = driver_register(&matrix_driver.drv); +ÂÂÂ if (ret) 
> > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ goto
> > > > > matrix_drv_err; +
> > > >
> > > > As you already have several structures that can be registered
> > > > exactly once (the root device, the bus, the driver, ...), you can
> > > > already be sure that there's only one device on the bus, can't
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > hum, no I don't think so, no device can register before this module
> > > is loaded, but what does prevent a device to register later from
> > > another module?
> >
> > Not unless you export the interface, I guess.
>
> :) definitively right
> thanks, this will simplify the code in the next version.
> I will take the patch away from this series to get the way to stable as 
> Christian requested.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre