On 05/03/2018 11:43, Peter Xu wrote:
> 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?
I don't think it's for VFIO only. It's just that VFIO is the only
caller of pci_setup_sva_ops.
Paolo
