[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 6/9] vfio: Mark cdev usage in vfio_device

[Liu, Yi L]

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:56 AM
> 
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 05:15:12AM -0700, Yi Liu wrote:
> > This can be used to differentiate whether to report group_id or devid in
> > the revised VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO ioctl. At this moment, no
> > cdev path yet, so the vfio_device_cdev_opened() helper always returns false.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian at intel.com>
> > Tested-by: Terrence Xu <terrence.xu at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/vfio.h | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/vfio.h b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > index 2c137ea94a3e..2a45853773a6 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -139,6 +139,11 @@ int vfio_iommufd_emulated_attach_ioas(struct vfio_device
> *vdev, u32 *pt_id);
> >  	((int (*)(struct vfio_device *vdev, u32 *pt_id)) NULL)
> >  #endif
> >
> > +static inline bool vfio_device_cdev_opened(struct vfio_device *device)
> > +{
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> 
> This and the two hunks in the other two patches that use this function
> should be folded into the cdev series, probably just flattened to one
> patch

Hmmm. I have a doubt about the rule. I think the reason to have this
sub-series is to avoid bumping the cdev series. So perhaps we can still
put this and the patch 9 in this series? Otherwise, most of the series
needs to be in the cdev series.

Regards,
Yi Liu