[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 09/10] vfio/pci: Extend VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO for vfio device cdev

[Alex Williamson]

On Thu, 18 May 2023 13:31:47 +0000
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu at intel.com> wrote:

> > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu at intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 9:22 PM
> >   
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 6:02 AM
> > >
> > > On Sat, 13 May 2023 06:21:35 -0700
> > > Yi Liu <yi.l.liu at intel.com> wrote:  
> 
> > >
> > > static int vfio_hot_reset_devid(struct vfio_device *vdev,
> > >                                 struct iommufd_ctx *iommufd_ctx)
> > > {
> > >         struct iommu_group *group;
> > >         int devid;
> > >
> > >         if (!vdev)
> > >                 return VFIO_PCI_DEVID_NOT_OWNED;
> > >
> > >         if (vfio_iommufd_physical_ictx(vdev) == iommufd_ctx)
> > >                 return vfio_iommufd_physical_devid(vdev);  
> 
> Do we need to check the return of this helper? It returns -EINVAL
> when iommufd_access and iommufd_device are both null. Though
> not possible in this path. Is a WARN_ON needed or not?

I also came to the conclusion that it wasn't possible while reviewing
the code.  I wouldn't got to extreme measures to introduce paranoia
checks for impossible conditions.  Thanks,

Alex

> > >
> > >         group = iommu_group_get(vdev->dev);
> > >         if (!group)
> > >                 return VFIO_PCI_DEVID_NOT_OWNED;
> > >
> > >         if (iommufd_ctx_has_group(iommufd_ctx, group))
> > >                 devid = VFIO_PCI_DEVID_OWNED;
> > >
> > >         iommu_group_put(group);
> > >
> > >         return devid;
> > > }