Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:10:35 -0600 Alex Williamson wrote: > There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device > is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as > triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:10:35 -0600 Alex Williamson wrote: > There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device > is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as > triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this properly in >

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

On 5/19/2018 12:40 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device > is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as > triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this properly in > mdev_device_remove() with an

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

On 5/19/2018 12:40 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device > is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as > triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this properly in > mdev_device_remove() with an

[PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this properly in mdev_device_remove() with an -EAGAIN return, but we can marginally reduce this gap by

[PATCH v4 2/2] vfio/mdev: Re-order sysfs attribute creation

There exists a gap at the end of mdev_device_create() where the device is visible to userspace, but we're not yet ready to handle removal, as triggered through the 'remove' attribute. We handle this properly in mdev_device_remove() with an -EAGAIN return, but we can marginally reduce this gap by