From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DC1C4321D for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0400221935 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0400221935 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727443AbeHQQ1P (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:27:15 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:58226 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726495AbeHQQ1P (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:27:15 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7HDNph9100318 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:23:52 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kwvb5xxaw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:23:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:23:37 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.15) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:23:33 -0600 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7HDNVc966846972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 06:23:31 -0700 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C3B136051; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:23:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3DB136053; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:23:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from oc8043147753.ibm.com (unknown [9.80.206.50]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:23:26 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure adapters To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Tony Krowiak , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com, fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1534196899-16987-11-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180815115242.35a2a1ce.cohuck@redhat.com> <4bf27c7a-34c6-9160-cdc6-19022b86202b@linux.ibm.com> <20180816093015.19e54936.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:23:26 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180816093015.19e54936.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18081713-0016-0000-0000-0000091C3371 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009561; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01074832; UDB=6.00553932; IPR=6.00854790; MB=3.00022773; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-08-17 13:23:36 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18081713-0017-0000-0000-00004007D348 Message-Id: <6e933696-515c-0533-796b-ef75b8627c84@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-17_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=896 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808170147 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/16/2018 03:30 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:59:35 -0400 > Tony Krowiak wrote: > >> On 08/15/2018 05:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:07 -0400 >>> Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>> +/** >>>> + * unassign_adapter_store >>>> + * >>>> + * @dev: the matrix device >>>> + * @attr: a mediated matrix device attribute >>>> + * @buf: a buffer containing the adapter ID (APID) to be assigned >>>> + * @count: the number of bytes in @buf >>>> + * >>>> + * Parses the APID from @buf and unassigns it from the mediated matrix device. >>>> + * The APID must be a valid value >>> A valid value, but not necessarily assigned, right? >> You are correct, if the APID is not assigned, then the corresponding bit >> will be >> cleared regardless. In a previous version, the functions failed if the >> APID is >> not assigned, but a colleague removed that check. I guess it makes sense >> given >> it really does not hurt anything to ask to unassign an APID that isn't >> assigned >> to begin with. Would you prefer I update the comment, or do you feel the >> user >> should be made aware of an attempt to unassign an APID that is not assigned? > I think the code is fine; updating the comment would be good. Will do. >