From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com (e23smtp08.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C251A02BF for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:59:26 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:59:25 +1000 Received: from d23relay06.au.ibm.com (d23relay06.au.ibm.com [9.185.63.219]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACB62BB0051 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:59:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay06.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t9U7x7J530998556 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:59:15 +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 t9U7wmRT016648 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:58:48 +1100 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:58:23 +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: <20151030075823.GH5940@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> <20151030065246.GC5940@richards-mbp.cn.ibm.com> <56331DE1.1090500@ozlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <56331DE1.1090500@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 06:36:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 10/30/2015 05:52 PM, Wei Yang wrote: >>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? > > >The commit log is ok, I just thought loud that eeh_dev_init() could go to >add_one_dev_pci_data() to make things more clear. > I thought this is are good suggestion. My thought is, when we don't have VF, pci_dn and edev are two different thing. We create pci_dn first and then initialize the edev. So mix the initialization of them together is not that clear. Not sure you agree or not. > > >>> >>>> >>>>[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. > >May be BUG_ON will be enough, up to you. > Yep, thanks. > >> >>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 -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me