From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934135AbdDEV42 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:56:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35988 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881AbdDEV4T (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:56:19 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 85B9B811D8 Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 85B9B811D8 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:56:14 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Cao jin Cc: Alex Williamson , 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: <20170406005028-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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58E4B0C9.50109@cn.fujitsu.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:56:18 +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 04:54:33PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > Apparently, I don't have experience to induce non-fatal error, device > error is more of a chance related with the environment(temperature, > humidity, etc) as I understand. I'm not sure how to interpret this statement. I think what Alex is saying is simply that patches should include some justification. They make changes but what are they improving? For example: I tested device ABC in conditions DEF. Without a patch VM stops. With the patches applied VM recovers and proceeds to use the device normally. is one reasonable justification imho. -- MST