From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932666AbdDEVue (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:50:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44496 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753533AbdDEVu1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:50:27 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 7D38B4E4F5 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 7D38B4E4F5 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:50:22 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Alex Williamson Cc: Cao jin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] vfio error recovery: kernel support Message-ID: <20170406004845-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1490260051-6046-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170324161238.366ce6a7@t450s.home> <58DA6954.2000601@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170328101233.74f50a92@t450s.home> <20170329000148.GA18849@redhat.com> <20170328205513.21b97381@t450s.home> <20170330205823-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170330121652.2ac8fa62@t450s.home> <58E4B0C9.50109@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170405133822.76cda620@t450s.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170405133822.76cda620@t450s.home> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:38:22PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > The previous intention of trying to handle all sorts of AER faults > clearly had more value, though even there the implementation and > configuration requirements restricted the practicality. For instance > is AER support actually useful to a customer if it requires all ports > of a multifunction device assigned to the VM? This seems more like a > feature targeting whole system partitioning rather than general VM > device assignment use cases. Maybe that's ok, but it should be a clear > design decision. Alex, what kind of testing do you expect to be necessary? Would you say testing on real hardware and making it trigger AER errors is a requirement? -- MST