On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:16:31AM -0400, Jag Raman wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:09:22AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > makes sense to me and I see how it forms the base on which > > VFIO-over-socket and smaller remote program builds using Kconfig can be > > developed. > > > > My main concern is that the object lifecycle has not been fully > > implemented in the proxy and remote device. Error handling is > > Thank you for your feedback on. FWIW, we did check about the unrealize() path > in the object lifecycle management. We noticed that the destructor for the PCI > devices (pci_qdev_unrealize()) is currently not invoking the instance specific > destructor/unrealize functions. While this is not an excuse for not > implementing > the unrealize functions, it currently doesn’t have an impact on the hot > unplug path. > > You’re correct, we should implement the unrealize/destructor for the Proxy & > remote > objects. We’ll also look into any background for why the PCI devices don’t > call > instance specific destructor.
PCIDeviceClass->exit() is invoked by pci_qdev_unrealize(). I'm not sure why it's called "exit" instead of "unrealize" but PCI devices implement it to perform clean-up. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
