From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] libxl: give pciback a chance to do its teardown before we reset the device. Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20140605174142.GB2546@localhost.localdomain> References: <1401888813-30987-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1401888813-30987-2-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1401965922.29759.6.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wsbfm-0003mD-2p for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:41:54 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401965922.29759.6.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:58:42AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 09:33 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > We try to reset the device before we signal the pciback that > > the device is no longer to be used by the guest. As such > > we should give the pciback (or QEMU) a chance first to > > some cleanup before we deploy the sledghammer approach > > of resetting the device. > > What does "a chance" correspond to here? Do we wait for some defined > time for the state node to hit closed or are we now relying in winning a > race more often than before? > > I think we would obviously prefer the former, meaning there should be a > call to libxl__wait_for_backend("6") in here somewhere I think. Yeah, that would be smarter. > > Ian. >