> From: Alex Williamson <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 4:11 AM > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 07:18:36 +0000 > "Tian, Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 5:58 PM > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > > > > not required with only your own s-o-b > > > > > @@ -2090,6 +2092,9 @@ int vfio_pci_core_init_dev(struct vfio_device > > > *core_vdev) > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->dummy_resources_list); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->ioeventfds_list); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->sriov_pfs_item); > > > + ret = pcim_p2pdma_init(vdev->pdev); > > > + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) > > > + return ret; > > > > Reading the commit msg seems -EOPNOTSUPP is only returned for fake > > PCI devices, otherwise it implies regression. better add a comment for it? > > I think the commit log is saying that if a device comes along that > can't support this, we'd quirk the init path to return -EOPNOTSUPP for > that particular device here. This path is currently used when > !CONFIG_PCI_P2PDMA to make this error non-fatal to the device init. > > I don't see a regression if such a device comes along and while we > could survive other types of failures by disabling p2pdma here, I think > all such cases are sufficient rare out of memory cases to consider them > catastrophic. Thanks, >
ah yes. I read it inaccurately.
