From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54828 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725853AbeIEFj4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 01:39:56 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC on PCI Device Lock To: Alex Williamson Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Dennis Dalessandro , Linux PCI References: <87682473-6ffe-f7df-e8f8-3d00e8247621@kernel.org> <20180904165202.4e5bb59d@t450s.home> From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <17720f56-2caa-2d2e-b655-867debf55934@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 18:12:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180904165202.4e5bb59d@t450s.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 9/4/2018 3:52 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > I won't deny that we're getting a little sloppy with some of the reset > interfaces and I'd love to solve the device lock issue more generally, > but trying to abstract slot vs bus and hide the lower level interfaces > from drivers doesn't seem like it's really working here. Thanks, Counter argument is that drivers need to know about bus/slot distinction and call two different API for hotplug capable systems. I think that's too much to ask. The motivation for original patch was that hotplug information was leaking and we could do a better job about it. But, you are right; I partially covered VFIO needs as it seemed to be doing more work than a simple reset due to ownership dependencies.