All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, david.daney@cavium.com,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@cavium.com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: Avoid slot reset for Cavium cn8xxx root ports
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:52:37 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170907105237.3f025280@w520.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170907074904.GB13490@hc>

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:49:04 +0200
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:40:11AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > So what if we add an additional check like:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index fdf65a6..389db4b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -4389,6 +4389,9 @@ static bool pci_slot_resetable(struct pci_slot *slot)
> >  {
> >         struct pci_dev *dev;
> >  
> > +       if (slot->bus->self & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)
> > +               return false;
> > +
> >         list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list) {
> >                 if (!dev->slot || dev->slot != slot)
> >                         continue;  
> 
> Obviously I meant:
> if (slot->bus->self->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)

Much better, perhaps even incorporate the bus->self check for good
measure... is it possible to have a slot on a root bus?  Taking
different approaches for bus vs slot reset should have been a giant red
flag that something is wrong.  Thanks,

Alex

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: alex.williamson@redhat.com (Alex Williamson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: Avoid slot reset for Cavium cn8xxx root ports
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:52:37 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170907105237.3f025280@w520.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170907074904.GB13490@hc>

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:49:04 +0200
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:40:11AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > So what if we add an additional check like:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index fdf65a6..389db4b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -4389,6 +4389,9 @@ static bool pci_slot_resetable(struct pci_slot *slot)
> >  {
> >         struct pci_dev *dev;
> >  
> > +       if (slot->bus->self & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)
> > +               return false;
> > +
> >         list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list) {
> >                 if (!dev->slot || dev->slot != slot)
> >                         continue;  
> 
> Obviously I meant:
> if (slot->bus->self->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)

Much better, perhaps even incorporate the bus->self check for good
measure... is it possible to have a slot on a root bus?  Taking
different approaches for bus vs slot reset should have been a giant red
flag that something is wrong.  Thanks,

Alex

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	david.daney@cavium.com, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@cavium.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: Avoid slot reset for Cavium cn8xxx root ports
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:52:37 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170907105237.3f025280@w520.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170907074904.GB13490@hc>

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:49:04 +0200
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:40:11AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > So what if we add an additional check like:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index fdf65a6..389db4b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -4389,6 +4389,9 @@ static bool pci_slot_resetable(struct pci_slot *slot)
> >  {
> >         struct pci_dev *dev;
> >  
> > +       if (slot->bus->self & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)
> > +               return false;
> > +
> >         list_for_each_entry(dev, &slot->bus->devices, bus_list) {
> >                 if (!dev->slot || dev->slot != slot)
> >                         continue;  
> 
> Obviously I meant:
> if (slot->bus->self->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET)

Much better, perhaps even incorporate the bus->self check for good
measure... is it possible to have a slot on a root bus?  Taking
different approaches for bus vs slot reset should have been a giant red
flag that something is wrong.  Thanks,

Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-07 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-30 14:24 [PATCH v3 0/3] Workaround for bus/slot reset on Cavium cn8xxx root ports Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24 ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24 ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] PCI: Allow PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET to be used on bus device Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24   ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] PCI: Avoid bus reset for Cavium cn8xxx root ports Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24   ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24   ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: Avoid slot " Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:24   ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-30 14:40   ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-30 14:40     ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-31  9:40     ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-31  9:40       ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-31  9:40       ` Jan Glauber
2017-08-31 16:01       ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-31 16:01         ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-31 16:01         ` Alex Williamson
2017-09-07  7:40         ` Jan Glauber
2017-09-07  7:40           ` Jan Glauber
2017-09-07  7:40           ` Jan Glauber
2017-09-07  7:49           ` Jan Glauber
2017-09-07  7:49             ` Jan Glauber
2017-09-07 16:52             ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2017-09-07 16:52               ` Alex Williamson
2017-09-07 16:52               ` Alex Williamson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170907105237.3f025280@w520.home \
    --to=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
    --cc=jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=jcm@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robert.richter@cavium.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.