Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] xen-pciback: prepare for the split for stub and PV

From: Jan Beulich
Date: Mon Sep 27 2021 - 03:49:11 EST

On 27.09.2021 09:35, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 27.09.21 10:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 27.09.2021 08:58, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Currently PCI backend implements multiple functionalities at a time.
>>> To name a few:
>>> 1. It is used as a database for assignable PCI devices, e.g. xl
>>> pci-assignable-{add|remove|list} manipulates that list. So, whenever
>>> the toolstack needs to know which PCI devices can be passed through
>>> it reads that from the relevant sysfs entries of the pciback.
>>> 2. It is used to hold the unbound PCI devices list, e.g. when passing
>>> through a PCI device it needs to be unbound from the relevant device
>>> driver and bound to pciback (strictly speaking it is not required
>>> that the device is bound to pciback, but pciback is again used as a
>>> database of the passed through PCI devices, so we can re-bind the
>>> devices back to their original drivers when guest domain shuts down)
>>> 3. Device reset for the devices being passed through
>>> 4. Para-virtualised use-cases support
>>> The para-virtualised part of the driver is not always needed as some
>>> architectures, e.g. Arm or x86 PVH Dom0, are not using backend-frontend
>>> model for PCI device passthrough. For such use-cases make the very
>>> first step in splitting the xen-pciback driver into two parts: Xen
>>> PCI stub and PCI PV backend drivers.
>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v3:
>>> - Move CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_STUB to the second patch
>> I'm afraid this wasn't fully done:
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/Makefile
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_BACKEND) += xen-pciback.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_STUB) += xen-pciback.o
>> While benign when added here, this addition still doesn't seem to
>> belong here.
> My bad. So, it seems without CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_STUB the change seems
> to be non-functional. With CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_STUB we fail to build on 32-bit
> architectures...
> What would be the preference here? Stefano suggested that we still define
> CONFIG_XEN_PCIDEV_STUB, but in disabled state, e.g. we add tristate to it
> in the second patch
> Another option is just to squash the two patches.

I'd suggest to do so, but I'm not the maintainer of this code.