Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state

Pierre Morel
2018-05-03T09:02:33Z

On 30/04/2018 17:47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:55:51 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2018 10:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200
>>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same
>>>> states.
>>>> Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 9 ---------
>>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 -
>>>> 2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
>>> I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things:
>>> - BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request
>>> - BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it
>>>
>>> It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we?
>>>
>> I do not know what.
> The BUSY state is something we know that we'll get out of soon-ish
> (when the I/O request has finished). We could conceivably use a timeout
> and drop to the BOXED state if we don't get an answer.

Absolutely, timeout on requests is something I wanted to do in a second
series.

>
> I think this plays also into the reserve/release and path handling
> questions. One of the more common reasons for devices to become boxed
> I've seen is another system doing a reserve on a dasd.
>

--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany