On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:27:47 +0000 David Matlack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2026-02-26 04:15 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:24:55 +0000 David Matlack <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > + /* > > > + * This device was preserved across a Live Update. Accessing it via > > > + * VFIO_GROUP_GET_DEVICE_FD is not allowed. > > > + */ > > > + if (vfio_liveupdate_incoming_is_preserved(device)) { > > > + vfio_device_put_registration(device); > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > > Is this an EPERM issue then? > > I was thinking EBUSY in the sense that the device is only temporarily > inaccesible through this interface due it being in a preserved state as > part of a Live Update. Once the preserved device file is retreived and > closed, the device can be accessed again through > VFIO_GROUP_GET_DEVICE_FD. > > EPERM might lead to confusion that there is a filesystem permission > issue? Ok, fair explanation. Thanks, Alex
