On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:43:09PM +0800, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:06:56PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 01/03/2018 11:33, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > + pci_device_notify_iommu(pdev, PCI_NTY_DEV_ADD);
> > > +
> > > pci_setup_sva_ops(pdev, &vfio_pci_sva_ops);
> > >
> > > return;
> > > @@ -3134,6 +3136,7 @@ static void vfio_exitfn(PCIDevice *pdev)
> > > {
> > > VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = DO_UPCAST(VFIOPCIDevice, pdev, pdev);
> > >
> > > + pci_device_notify_iommu(pdev, PCI_NTY_DEV_DEL);
> >
> > Please make the names longer: PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_DEVICE_ADDED and
> > PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_DEVICE_REMOVED. (This is independent of my other
> > remark, about doing this in generic PCI code for all devices that
> > register SVA ops).
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, will appply.
Isn't the name too generic if it's tailored for VFIO only? Would
something like PCI_IOMMU_NOTIFY_VFIO_ADD be a bit better?
--
Peter Xu
