Re: [PATCH V1 vfio 0/5] Improve mlx5 driver to better handle some error cases

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:04:05AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:45:14 +0200
> Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 08/02/2024 10:16, Yishai Hadas wrote:
> > > On 06/02/2024 10:06, Yishai Hadas wrote:  
> > >> On 06/02/2024 9:35, Tian, Kevin wrote:  
> > >>>> From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 8:48 PM
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This series improves the mlx5 driver to better handle some error cases
> > >>>> as of below.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The first two patches let the driver recognize whether the firmware
> > >>>> moved the tracker object to an error state. In that case, the driver
> > >>>> will skip/block any usage of that object.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The next two patches (#3, #4), improve the driver to better include the
> > >>>> proper firmware syndrome in dmesg upon a failure in some firmware
> > >>>> commands.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The last patch follows the device specification to let the firmware 
> > >>>> know
> > >>>> upon leaving PRE_COPY back to RUNNING. (e.g. error in the target,
> > >>>> migration cancellation, etc.).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This will let the firmware clean its internal resources that were 
> > >>>> turned
> > >>>> on upon PRE_COPY.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Note:
> > >>>> As the first patch should go to net/mlx5, we may need to send it as a
> > >>>> pull request format to vfio before acceptance of the series, to avoid
> > >>>> conflicts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Changes from V0: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240130170227.153464-1-
> > >>>> yishaih@nvidia.com/
> > >>>> Patch #2:
> > >>>> - Rename to use 'object changed' in some places to make it clearer.
> > >>>> - Enhance the commit log to better clarify the usage/use case.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The above was suggested by Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>.
> > >>>>  
> > >>>
> > >>> this series looks good to me except a small remark on patch2:  
> > >>
> > >> We should be fine there, see my answer on V0.
> > >>  
> > >>>
> > >>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>  
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Kevin, for your reviewed-by.
> > >>
> > >> Yishai
> > >>  
> > > 
> > > Alex
> > > 
> > > Are we OK here to continue with a PR for the first patch ?
> > > 
> > > It seems that we should be fine here.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yishai
> > >   
> > 
> > Hi Alex,
> > Any update here ?
> 
> Sure, if Leon wants to do a PR for struct
> mlx5_ifc_query_page_track_obj_out_bits, that's fine.  The series looks
> ok to me.  The struct definition is small enough to go through the vfio
> tree with Leon's ack, but I'll leave it to you to do the right thing
> relative to potential conflicts.  Thanks,

Alex, you are right, there is no need to send a PR for the first patch.
Please take it directly through your tree.

We don't have anything in our shared branch this cycle.

Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>

Thanks

> 
> Alex
>