From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout3.hostsharing.net (bmailout3.hostsharing.net [176.9.242.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A305F317705 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 13:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=176.9.242.62 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755438329; cv=none; b=bB3kLTMk2eloQJHjGzWaaQG5gbxFdtfD+cAhyVdYOdKsWIqfz+qJR2j/UFaims4Y8AchkUlFxQwAP9WqCM5EXkZVj2yOayTgsvwEeqlxE0yoSANPcCJIvVMmJibSqjdxNqLod53ZzRMTyheq5dxCp7qnILluMrHy+UMy1FI3Qwg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755438329; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bF1Gi+ZK6PjI5s7cRcU2TGY9CaqziJJHuUPmyThBBdU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=C4WeOV+Rr+h3aBrQq1Lzlf47ZRnvVPmCsV0/mX5kRe0J8QQ1m1ozfBOuQjziRb0yyBxus+ihgbwnzvv0KusD4gGUcmHQZZD4Fh+dfD9mvZPa2XyyPaIlJSYc1lkmsw5q6ngEgRlYtnBYGGv2WRLpc17PtWf3w+5RB6NwceOU3tA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=176.9.242.62 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f1c:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout3.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E0DC2C051CC; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 2047E3BEDFB; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:45:25 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Riana Tauro , Aravind Iddamsetty , "Sean C. Dardis" , Terry Bowman , Niklas Schnelle , Linas Vepstas , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver OHalloran , Manivannan Sadhasivam , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/AER: Allow drivers to opt in to Bus Reset on Non-Fatal Errors Message-ID: References: <28fd805043bb57af390168d05abb30898cf4fc58.1755008151.git.lukas@wunner.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote: > On 8/12/25 10:11 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > The file Documentation/PCI/pcieaer-howto.rst hints at a rationale for > > always performing a Bus Reset on Fatal Errors: "Fatal errors [...] cause > > the link to be unreliable. [...] This [reset_link] callback is used to > > reset the PCIe physical link when a fatal error happens. If an error > > message indicates a fatal error, [...] performing link reset at upstream > > is necessary." > > In the code we don't seem to differentiate link_reset and slot_reset. But > the Documentation calls them into two steps. Do you think we should > fix the Documentation? reset_link and slot_reset are two different things: * slot_reset is the ->slot_reset() callback in struct pci_error_handlers. * reset_link is the reset_subordinates() callback passed in to pcie_do_recovery(). Commit 8f1bbfbc3596 renamed reset_link() to reset_subordinates() but neglected to update Documentation/PCI/pcieaer-howto.rst. Commit b6cf1a42f916 dropped the reset_link() callback from struct pcie_port_service_driver and dropped default_reset_link() in favor of passing aer_root_reset() to pcie_do_recovery(). Yet the documentation continues referring to a "default reset_link callback" and incorrectly claims that "Upstream Port drivers may provide their own reset_link functions". I've begun updating the documentation and intend to submit that separately. Thanks, Lukas