On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 11:25:15AM -0400, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> On 4/12/22 11:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Every caller has a readily available vfio_device pointer, use that instead
> > of passing in a generic struct device. The struct vfio_device already
> > contains the group we need so this
On 4/12/22 11:53 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Every caller has a readily available vfio_device pointer, use that instead
of passing in a generic struct device. The struct vfio_device already
contains the group we need so this avoids complexity, extra refcountings,
and a confusing lifecycle
On 4/12/22 11:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Every caller has a readily available vfio_device pointer, use that instead
of passing in a generic struct device. The struct vfio_device already
contains the group we need so this avoids complexity, extra refcountings,
and a confusing lifecycle model.
...
On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 12:53 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Every caller has a readily available vfio_device pointer, use that
> instead
> of passing in a generic struct device. The struct vfio_device already
> contains the group we need so this avoids complexity, extra
> refcountings,
> and a
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 07:57:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > - extern int vfio_pin_pages(struct device *dev, unsigned long *user_pfn,
> > + extern int vfio_pin_pages(struct vfio_device *vdev, unsigned long
> > *user_pfn,
> > int npage, int prot,
Every caller has a readily available vfio_device pointer, use that instead
of passing in a generic struct device. The struct vfio_device already
contains the group we need so this avoids complexity, extra refcountings,
and a confusing lifecycle model.
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe
---
