From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:21:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-rc1 05/10] IOCHK interface for I/O error handling/detecting Message-Id: <20050718192116.GB11016@colo.lackof.org> List-Id: References: <42CB63B2.6000505@jp.fujitsu.com> <42CB680E.2010103@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <42CB680E.2010103@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hidetoshi Seto Cc: Linux Kernel list , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, "Luck, Tony" , Linas Vepstas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , long , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linuxppc64-dev On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 02:11:42PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > [This is 5 of 10 patches, "iochk-05-check_bridge.patch"] ... > It means that A or B hits a bus error, but there is no data > which one actually hits the error. So, C should notify the > error to both of A and B, and clear the H's status to start > its own I/Os. > > If there are only two devices, it become more simple. It is > clear if one find a bridge error while another is check-in, > the error is nothing except for another's. Sorry, I don't understand this last paragraph. I don't see how it's more simple with two devices (vs three) if we don't exactly know which device caused the error. I thought one still needed to reset/restart both devices. Is that correct? The devices operate asyncronously from the drivers. Only the driver can tell us for sure if IO was in flight for a particular device and decide that a device could NOT have generated an error. Otherwise, so far, the patches look fine to me. thanks, grant