On 2024/5/17 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.05.2024 10:08, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2024/5/16 21:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.05.2024 11:52, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>> struct physdev_pci_device {
>>>> /* IN */
>>>> uint16_t seg;
>>>
>>> Is re-using this struct for this new sub-op sufficient? IOW are all
>>> possible resets equal, and hence it doesn't need specifying what kind of
>>> reset was done? For example, other than FLR most reset variants reset all
>>> functions in one go aiui. Imo that would better require only a single
>>> hypercall, just to avoid possible confusion. It also reads as if FLR would
>>> not reset as many registers as other reset variants would.
>> If I understood correctly that you mean in this hypercall it needs to
>> support resetting both one function and all functions of a slot(dev)?
>> But it can be done for caller to use a cycle to call this reset hypercall
>> for each slot function.
>
> It could, yes, but since (aiui) there needs to be an indication of the
> kind of reset anyway, we can as well avoid relying on the caller doing
> so (and at the same time simplify what the caller needs to do).
Since the corresponding kernel patch has been merged into linux_next branch
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?h=next-20240515&id=b272722511d5e8ae580f01830687b8a6b2717f01,
if it's not very mandatory and necessary, just let the caller handle it
temporarily.
Or it can add a new hypercall to reset all functions in one go in future
potential requirement, like PHYSDEVOP_pci_device_state_reset_all_func.
>
> Jan
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.
