Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 vfio 3/7] vfio/pds: register with the pds_core PF

From: Brett Creeley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:09:58 -0700

On 7/21/2023 2:01 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
>> From: Brett Creeley <[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 6:35 AM
>>
>> +void pds_vfio_unregister_client_cmd(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
>> +{
>> +     struct pci_dev *pdev = pds_vfio_to_pci_dev(pds_vfio);
>> +     int err;
>> +
>> +     err = pds_client_unregister(pci_physfn(pdev), pds_vfio->client_id);
>> +     if (err)
>> +             dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unregister from DSC failed: %pe\n",
>> +                     ERR_PTR(err));
> 
> Why using ERR_PTR() here? it looks a common pattern used cross
> this series.

Yes, this is intentional. This is more readable than just printing out 
the error value.

> 
>> @@ -34,12 +34,13 @@ enum pds_core_vif_types {
>>
>>   #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_CORE_STR        "Core"
>>   #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR        "vDPA"
>> -#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR        "VFio"
>> +#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR        "vfio"
>>   #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_ETH_STR "Eth"
>>   #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_RDMA_STR        "RDMA"
>>   #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR  "LM"
>>
>>   #define PDS_VDPA_DEV_NAME     "."
>> PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR
>> +#define PDS_LM_DEV_NAME              PDS_CORE_DRV_NAME "."
>> PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "." PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR
>>
> 
> then should the name be changed to PDS_VFIO_LM_DEV_NAME?
> 
> Or is mentioning *LM* important? what would be the problem to just
> use "pds_core.vfio"?

LM is important for the device. I don't plan to change this.