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).
Jan
