From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:52:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC&PATCH 1/2] PCI Error Recovery (readX_check) Message-Id: <20040825155213.GB19447@cup.hp.com> List-Id: References: <412AD123.8050605@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093417267.2170.47.camel@gaston> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hidetoshi Seto , Linux Kernel list , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:20:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Because if you don't lock the bridge (or whatever the entity is that keeps > track of errors), the whole exercise is kind of pointless. If two drivers > try to do error checking at the same time, and will potentially clear the > errors of each other, causing the errors to get lost, the whole recovery > infrastructure is clearly worthless. Do we only need to determine there was an error in the IO hierarchy or do we also need to know which device/driver caused the error? If the latter I agree with linus. If the former, then the error recovery can support asyncronous errors (like the bad DMA address case) and tell all affected (thanks willy) drivers. grant