From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:52:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC&PATCH 1/2] PCI Error Recovery (readX_check) Message-Id: <20040825155213.GB19447@cup.hp.com> List-Id: References: <412AD123.8050605@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093417267.2170.47.camel@gaston> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hidetoshi Seto , Linux Kernel list , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:20:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Because if you don't lock the bridge (or whatever the entity is that keeps > track of errors), the whole exercise is kind of pointless. If two drivers > try to do error checking at the same time, and will potentially clear the > errors of each other, causing the errors to get lost, the whole recovery > infrastructure is clearly worthless. Do we only need to determine there was an error in the IO hierarchy or do we also need to know which device/driver caused the error? If the latter I agree with linus. If the former, then the error recovery can support asyncronous errors (like the bad DMA address case) and tell all affected (thanks willy) drivers. grant From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268108AbUHYPwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:52:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268098AbUHYPwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:52:31 -0400 Received: from palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:44433 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268057AbUHYPwY (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:52:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:52:13 -0700 From: Grant Grundler To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hidetoshi Seto , Linux Kernel list , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC&PATCH 1/2] PCI Error Recovery (readX_check) Message-ID: <20040825155213.GB19447@cup.hp.com> References: <412AD123.8050605@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093417267.2170.47.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:20:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Because if you don't lock the bridge (or whatever the entity is that keeps > track of errors), the whole exercise is kind of pointless. If two drivers > try to do error checking at the same time, and will potentially clear the > errors of each other, causing the errors to get lost, the whole recovery > infrastructure is clearly worthless. Do we only need to determine there was an error in the IO hierarchy or do we also need to know which device/driver caused the error? If the latter I agree with linus. If the former, then the error recovery can support asyncronous errors (like the bad DMA address case) and tell all affected (thanks willy) drivers. grant