From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com (e23smtp09.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA60E1A0386 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:53:46 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:53:46 +1000 Received: from d23relay10.au.ibm.com (d23relay10.au.ibm.com [9.190.26.77]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB982CE8052 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:53:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay10.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t9U6raJU1769870 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:53:44 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t9U6rBoB012741 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:53:12 +1100 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:52:46 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Alexey Kardashevskiy Cc: Wei Yang , gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bhelgaas@google.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 06/12] powerpc/powernv: EEH device for VF Message-ID: <20151030065246.GC5940@richards-mbp.cn.ibm.com> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1445829362-2738-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1445829362-2738-7-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5632E51D.30805@ozlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <5632E51D.30805@ozlabs.ru> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:33:49PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 10/26/2015 02:15 PM, Wei Yang wrote: >>VFs and their corresponding pci_dn instances are created and released >>dynamically as their PF's SRIOV capability is enabled and disabled. >>The patch creates and releases EEH devices for VFs when creating and >>releasing their pci_dn instances, which means EEH devices and pci_dn >>instances have same life cycle. Also, VF's EEH device is identified >>by (struct eeh_dev::physfn). > > >The add_dev_pci_data() helper (the one you hack) does not create pci_dn >instances. The add_one_dev_pci_data() helper does. > Yes, you are right. The patch here create edev after the pci_dn is created. So which part in the log you think is not accurate? > >> >>[gwshan: changelog and removed CONFIG_PCI_IOV] >>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang >>Acked-by: Gavin Shan >>--- >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h | 1 + >> arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h >>index c5eb86f..6c383ad 100644 >>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h >>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h >>@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ struct eeh_dev { >> struct pci_controller *phb; /* Associated PHB */ >> struct pci_dn *pdn; /* Associated PCI device node */ >> struct pci_dev *pdev; /* Associated PCI device */ >>+ struct pci_dev *physfn; /* Associated PF PORT */ >> struct pci_bus *bus; /* PCI bus for partial hotplug */ >> }; >> >>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c >>index f771130..f0ddde7 100644 >>--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c >>+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c >>@@ -180,7 +180,9 @@ static struct pci_dn *add_one_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dn *parent, >> struct pci_dn *add_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> { >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV >>+ struct pci_controller *hose = pci_bus_to_host(pdev->bus); >> struct pci_dn *parent, *pdn; >>+ struct eeh_dev *edev; >> int i; >> >> /* Only support IOV for now */ >>@@ -206,6 +208,9 @@ struct pci_dn *add_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> __func__, i); >> return NULL; >> } >>+ eeh_dev_init(pdn, hose); >>+ edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn); > > >In theory, pdn_to_eeh_dev() can return NULL. In this patch, it is not clear >if pdn->edev gets initialized before or after add_dev_pci_data(). > Yep, the return value should be checked. pdn->edev is initialized in eeh_dev_init() which is called in add_dev_pci_data(). The order is not clear? > > >>+ edev->physfn = pdev; >> } >> #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_IOV */ >> >>@@ -254,10 +259,17 @@ void remove_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> for (i = 0; i < pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev); i++) { >> list_for_each_entry_safe(pdn, tmp, >> &parent->child_list, list) { >>+ struct eeh_dev *edev; >> if (pdn->busno != pci_iov_virtfn_bus(pdev, i) || >> pdn->devfn != pci_iov_virtfn_devfn(pdev, i)) >> continue; >> >>+ edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn); >>+ if (edev) { >>+ pdn->edev = NULL; >>+ kfree(edev); >>+ } >>+ >> if (!list_empty(&pdn->list)) >> list_del(&pdn->list); >> >> > > >-- >Alexey >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me