From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout2.hostsharing.net (bmailout2.hostsharing.net [83.223.78.240]) (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 F04C93093D7; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 21:10:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.78.240 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770412256; cv=none; b=h5GQTgpQkz+azy+hvre8HUuowZKYEr+rTYPXscNp0ESZnEs8mLT47Re+2V2LgLgHoHirAU4IOY/kjQngkfb8Or9byo/M9b5VYPtAyGmNZ61SuCAYLrJano6ZvjmCgARM1cEE0kdfnwu9H9VdA7MvkeZh7pKNOyAaMrUrsiR4oi0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770412256; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rqvftc6NKAdmy/FYINCo5ZPuutP1eJkXz+ClzPeV8SY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LpgfILqvA2EvGVXHGbaIrdVR6zECt8nk6+QG71hqe7bzwY8MQuZ/ogx024zxKw1viH7XL5fqBHBNIAi0Vo42JGpRjj8gUPHU0diC7ypBCeL4HCMwF8X2FRf7TdMupU44dPmVuFCRSHnTfb9rGO6kCB6T5V9rLppV3NEqXly6KkY= 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=83.223.78.240 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 [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384 client-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) client-digest SHA384) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "GlobalSign GCC R6 AlphaSSL CA 2025" (verified OK)) by bmailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246912008014; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 22:10:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 1F9F0473B; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 22:10:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 22:10:48 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Keith Busch Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Breno Leitao , Jonathan Corbet , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver O'Halloran , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, dcostantino@meta.com, rneu@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/AER: Add option to panic on unrecoverable errors Message-ID: References: <20260206-pci-v1-1-85160f02d956@debian.org> <20260206185232.GA70936@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@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 Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 09:53:39PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > So I wouldn't consider 918b4053184c to have been a universally successful > approach and I fear that this patch goes even further. Forgot to mention -- there's another problem: PCI_ERS_RESULT_NO_AER_DRIVER is obviously AER-specific. powerpc (EEH) and s390 have error recovery mechanisms separate from AER and we've been trying to align them more closely so that drivers don't need to be aware of platform-specific behavior. eeh_pe_report_edev() does not modify the pci_ers_result for unbound drivers and those without pci_error_handlers. And the default is PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE. eeh_report_error() also returns PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE for drivers without ->error_detected() callback. In the PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE case, EEH seems to perform a reset and assume successful recovery. It's only AER that is this strict about unbound devices and drivers that lack pci_error_handlers. If anything we should try to *reduce* deviations between the various error recovery mechanisms, not double down on increasing them. Thanks, Lukas