From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfio/pci: Support error recovery Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20170112182135-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1483175736-17137-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170110005600-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5874C989.9080504@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170110170832-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58759015.5060909@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com To: Cao jin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58759015.5060909@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:53:25AM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > > > On 01/10/2017 11:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:46:17PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 01/10/2017 07:04 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:15:36PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >>>> Support serious device error recovery > >>> > >>> serious? > >>> > >> > >> Sorry for my poor vocabulary if it confuses people. I wanted to express > >> the meaning that: vfio-pci actually cannot do a real recovery for device > >> even if it provides the callbacks, it relies on the user to do a > >> effective(or word "serious"?) recovery. > >> > >> Welcome the amendment on the commit log. > > > > It's up to Alex, maybe he's able to figure it all out from > > code, but the rest of us could benefit from a description > > of what the patch does from userspace point of view. > > > > Also, is it a pre-requisite of the userspace patches you posted? > > > > Yes, it is. Looks like it's time for another design document :) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44939) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRiAr-0005Fu-V9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:24:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRiAm-0006oh-V8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:24:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cRiAm-0006nx-PQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:24:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:24:19 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170112182135-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1483175736-17137-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170110005600-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5874C989.9080504@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170110170832-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <58759015.5060909@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58759015.5060909@cn.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vfio/pci: Support error recovery List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cao jin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:53:25AM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > > > On 01/10/2017 11:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:46:17PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 01/10/2017 07:04 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:15:36PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >>>> Support serious device error recovery > >>> > >>> serious? > >>> > >> > >> Sorry for my poor vocabulary if it confuses people. I wanted to express > >> the meaning that: vfio-pci actually cannot do a real recovery for device > >> even if it provides the callbacks, it relies on the user to do a > >> effective(or word "serious"?) recovery. > >> > >> Welcome the amendment on the commit log. > > > > It's up to Alex, maybe he's able to figure it all out from > > code, but the rest of us could benefit from a description > > of what the patch does from userspace point of view. > > > > Also, is it a pre-requisite of the userspace patches you posted? > > > > Yes, it is. Looks like it's time for another design document :)