From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BD2D7080D; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781485179; cv=none; b=L/XBIADJTn50SVQ3LxMflHXt6zoFJyVCL4MfUjyRfQOzHpyRglURKtVsuyRMBV0pBKr5Mb25Qsvs73BRUyD9CHraeEDm44FBjUMPCPU5H87jWtuOk7ms1Octlklytm+OsSrNjoa/EtpJwo0GklSUdPJZR6u3IZDM+cREsPwp+yw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781485179; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yC/BFsu7rOTj60DsdBxnueOEKAkiy69Q+7JMAXjOQnQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VkjHSRBKGPXQYe+o3H15KKcVgPN8/pxUMrK5hRYXm9b+vpAdeXjigtXdKtxlx9PG/R3+h73kLrTM1IaFMawGZcj+/MmiVXqt0mrEA7Uh2nK83jxD00kbzg8MbznTRXqiayLLNYSIYNHSaPxWteIEfrt8zEW3FaP19Grntb3QDWQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=AzLtbr/L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="AzLtbr/L" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=Cfdw/mn+aegjQt779+hXZRE7+aiUd93avhGXNwuYSWM=; b=AzLtbr/LAc6GgglPpfKQUUdJyMF+Eig5aA07GxEb19kz3sbv/v3cGj2X+hw90589uoq40IQSk WIKPredsHFXdp1j4to/EdKTHTESZ0zG8aQjhAlnfR1tzl/AKaibLVAZsf0SWMLGW2Cm/vCR9a86 kTqVFhcyeHVHkCv4OGqOYL4= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.92]) by canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4gds3s5CpjznTbY; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:50:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemk500009.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.194.94]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E153640565; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:59:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.161] (10.67.121.161) by kwepemk500009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:59:22 +0800 Message-ID: <28ce60f0-41d4-4f69-9069-8388bb4a8659@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:59:21 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] vfio/pci: Latch all module parameters per device To: Alex Williamson CC: kvm , Alex Williamson , linux-kernel , Jason Gunthorpe , Kevin Tian , References: <20260611213539.4100590-1-alex.williamson@nvidia.com> <20260611213539.4100590-6-alex.williamson@nvidia.com> <06ade652-fc43-451e-a3ef-a8b6051e5c9a@huawei.com> <20260612081124.6228fdb8@nvidia.com> Content-Language: en-US From: fengchengwen In-Reply-To: <20260612081124.6228fdb8@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To kwepemk500009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.94) On 6/12/2026 10:11 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 16:40:37 +0800 > fengchengwen wrote: >> >> Since nointxmask and disable_idle_d3 already have S_IWUSR and share the same >> "latch per device at init" behavior, it would be better to also add S_IWUSR >> to disable_vga for permission and behavior consistency. >> >> Runtime writes will only affect future devices, existing devices keep their >> latched value, so no extra risk. > > The difference is that notintxmask and disable_idle_d3 are typically > diagnostic measures while disable_vga is a feature mask. disable_vga > has never supported runtime modification. So, while I agree it's > possible, this would expand the scope of this series from bug fixes and > behavior restoration into feature enablement, which should have some > actual use case in mind. Therefore I don't intend to pursue it in this > series. Thanks, Understood and agreed. Thanks for clarifying the scope. > > Alex >