Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 2/2] Xen/PCIback: Implement PCI flr/slot/bus reset with 'reset' SysFS attribute

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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