From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:64389 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756656Ab2KHTOV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:14:21 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id uo13so3199325obb.19 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:14:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:14:09 -0600 From: Linas Vepstas To: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R" Subject: PCI error recovery patch [was: Request for feedback] Message-ID: <20121108191409.GA23458@linas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Vijay, I no longer actively maintain the error recovery stack. However, your patch and explanation for it looks reasonable to me --- it was certainly never the intent that a non-capable driver report a successful recovery.=20 I'm guessing that the bug that you are fixing was introduced when the original pci error recovery code was integrated with AER (PCI-AER was standardized after the original error recovery system was created, and I did not really pay very much attention to AER at the time). FWIW, I guess I could add a=20 Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas but I'm not sure that really means much any more :-) -- Linas On 7 November 2012 21:50, Pandarathil, Vijaymohan R wrote: > Hi Bjorn/Linas, >=20 > I got your names from the PCI/PCI-error-recovery maintainers list. I had > posted the following request last week. > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.pci/18465 >=20 > Being a newbie, it would be extremely helpful to get your guidance on > these changes, specifically on any side effects it has. I am also working > on another set of patches to improve the PCI error recovery/containment > capabilities of KVM. But if the above change cannot be made first, I may > have to figure out alternate approach for the second set of patches. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Vijay --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQnASBAAoJEOtqpTTgwGUcsa8P/3hGhjzvSHODgNamlyStzfQJ ZpBtU6UmP/VUa1qi9alkpW5skVTtf1KJjGEVnv6G5jMTEZrfM12z5kyXpCkdStGJ wJWyzjU1ZeqHzcNaoWL+2kyjjQZHxTwe6VstdMmzaygUUQ9K9WVZhC2gLfncHnUH vnVAhDjVo/6U+iK9UQ4DwKa44OQ+3kJkCb/hurKxz9oF4BzbWcBO7Uy2gqw/W2Ks F0r0tsC0g4IRRQFnjNtyXVLBKiR6HME/VrJBURrMLTt3HUqaAxC9z4KMtIhrm9XE hf4JuaPmcxbnvOezHER+QcMw+n77MsLezCLE0OQ25QBAG20BX8B9/iRFhXRtYsFm daY2rv9+FpCpzCHGs70vlK+Vhpr//64U+tvAUsXAp4/B8hh0sjYNoR31vhdy0frD xZSOl6d2SfiZgLZLGmvdEqE+Y8ndXdNIwPWnElSJYETcqiHrwjOH3kKlL0JNLfzW G3tyKQq0dF3epHMcaYEixBrlxVd42GPcBXUQBrcyrZB6xDBZ3FUDHVzGvAit9Emt 3zzhKak4ha/TLwlA1I9k7kN96taRnFxjBjb7EyRI03tsFL38I0fq1ZHvQTZS3Cw9 tHPxSJoUSY6NY/krQz9ivyGZIFM4zIUYnGgR6K926a1ONbVZTyRdSg+o7jxb0Htk vj3nJ5EDcXHcV4G/tcqu =8Oip -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--