From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wenxiong@linux.vnet.ibm.com (wenxiong) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 11:08:14 -0600 Subject: [PATCH]nvme-pci: Fixes EEH failure on ppc In-Reply-To: <20180206170200.GA658@localhost.localdomain> References: <1517867380-18790-1-git-send-email-wenxiong@vmlinux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180206163347.GG31110@localhost.localdomain> <20180206170200.GA658@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <0cc8ee246d548b5bf2b397591419e7b6@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On 2018-02-06 11:02, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018@10:55:41AM -0600, wenxiong wrote: >> On 2018-02-06 10:33, Keith Busch wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 03:49:40PM -0600, wenxiong at vmlinux.vnet.ibm.com >> > wrote: >> > > @@ -1189,6 +1183,12 @@ static enum blk_eh_timer_return >> > > nvme_timeout(struct request *req, bool reserved) >> > > struct nvme_command cmd; >> > > u32 csts = readl(dev->bar + NVME_REG_CSTS); >> > > >> > > + /* If PCI error recovery process is happening, we cannot reset or >> > > + * the recovery mechanism will surely fail. >> > > + */ >> > > + if (pci_channel_offline(to_pci_dev(dev->dev))) >> > > + return BLK_EH_HANDLED; >> > > + >> > >> > This patch will tell the block layer to complete the request and >> > consider >> > it a success, but it doesn't look like the command actually completed at >> > all. You're going to get data corruption this way, right? Is returning >> > BLK_EH_HANDLED immediately really the right thing to do here? >> > >> Hi Keith, >> >> Do you think we can return with BLK_EH_NOT_HANDLED? > > Maybe. I'm not familiar with how the EEH handling is going to go. Do > you expect some other recovery to get the driver to either see a > natural > completion at some point or recover it some other way? > Powerpc kernel code/nvme driver eeh callback functions are going to recover it at this point. Thanks, Wendy