[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 2/2] Xen/PCIback: Implement PCI flr/slot/bus reset with 'reset' SysFS attribute
On 12/18/2017 02:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 15.12.17 at 20:52, <Govinda.Tatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> +static int pcistub_device_reset(struct pci_dev *dev) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct xen_pcibk_dev_data *dev_data; >>>>> + bool slot = false, bus = false; >>>>> + struct pcistub_args arg = {}; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!dev) >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + >>>>> + dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "[%s]\n", __func__); >>>>> + >>>>> + /* First check and try FLR */ >>>>> + if (pcie_has_flr(dev)) { >>>>> + dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "resetting %s device using FLR\n", >>>>> + pci_name(dev)); >>>>> + pcie_flr(dev); >>>> The lack of error check here puzzled me, but I see the function >>>> indeed returns void right now. I think the prereq patch should >>>> change this along with exporting the function - you really don't >>>> want the device to be handed to a guest when the FLR timed >>>> out. >>> We will change pcie_flr() to return error code. I will make this change >>> in the next version of this patch. >> I exchanged some emails with Bjorn/Christoph and it looks like Christoph >> as some planto restructure pcie flr specific functions but I don't know >> the exact time-frame. For now,I am planning to use existing pcie_flr() >> after checking FLR capability. We will switchto revised pcie_flr() once >> it is available. >> >> I hope you are fine with this approach. Please let me know. Thanks. > I've seen that other discussion. I don't think the change here > should be done prior to the error reporting being put in place, > for security reasons. But in the end it'll be Konrad as the > maintainer to judge. > > Or wait, looks like there's some confusion in ./MAINTAINERS: > Konrad is listed as maintainer for "XEN PCI SUBSYSTEM", but the > list of files doesn't include pciback. So it would instead be Boris > or Jürgen to give you a final word. This is now 4.16 material so we can at least wait until closer to opening of the merge window when we may have the PCI updates. (And I just noticed that you responded to Christoph.) Besides, we don't want to make kernel changes until the interface is settled (i.e the toolstack changes are accepted). -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |