> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.william...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:14 AM > To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l....@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/2] vfio/pci: export common symbols in vfio-pci > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:18:22 +0800 > "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l....@intel.com> wrote: > > > This patch exports the following symbols from vfio-pci driver > > for vfio-pci alike driver. e.g. vfio-pci-mdev driver > > > > *) vfio_pci_set_vga_decode(); > > *) vfio_pci_release(); > > *) vfio_pci_open(); > > *) vfio_pci_register_dev_region(); > > *) vfio_pci_ioctl(); > > *) vfio_pci_rw(); > > *) vfio_pci_mmap(); > > *) vfio_pci_request(); > > *) vfio_pci_probe_misc(); > > *) vfio_pci_remove_misc(); > > *) vfio_err_handlers; > > *) vfio_pci_reflck_attach(); > > *) vfio_pci_reflck_put(); > > Exporting all these symbols scares me a bit. They're GPL and we don't > guarantee a kernel ABI, but I don't really want to support arbitrary > use cases either. What if we re-factored the shared bits into a common > file and just linked them together? Thanks,
Hi, Alex, Before refactor the code, I'd like to check with you on the module parameters for the two modules. The existing vfio-pci driver has some module parameters. e.g. ids, nointxmask, disable_idle_d3. For future usage and maintain, I think it is better to let the two drivers have same parameters. However, I'm not 100% on whether we want to allow user load vfio-pci.ko and vfio-pci-mdev.ko with different parameter value? e.g. load vfio-pci.ko with nointxmask=false while load vfio-pci-mdev.ko with nointxmask=true. How about your opinion on it? > > Alex Thanks, Yi Liu