On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:49:21 -0500 Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > We do this to show the no queues but bits set output in show? We could > > get rid of some code if we were to not z Managed to delete "eroize" fro "zeroize" > > I'm not sure what you are saying/asking here. The reason for this > is because there is no point in setting bits in the APCB if no queues > will be made available to the guest which is the case if the APM or > AQM are cleared. Exactly my train of thought! There is no point doing work (here zeroizing) that has no effect. Also I'm leaning towards incremental updates to the shadow_apcb (instead of basically recomputing it from the scratch each time). One thing I'm particularly worried abut is that because of the third argument of vfio_ap_mdev_filter_guest_matrix() called filter_apid, we could end up with different filtering decision than previously. E.g. we decided to filter the card on e.g. removal of a single queueu, but then somebody does an assign domain, and suddenly we unplug the domain and plug the card. With incremental changes the shadow_apcb, we could do less work (revise only what needs to be), and it would be more straight forward to reason about the absence of inconsistent filtering. Regards, Halil
