From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41289) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WwLf6-0007aZ-6I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:24:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WwLey-00039K-5W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:24:40 -0400 Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.143]:43525) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WwLew-000396-Kl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:24:32 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:24:25 +1000 Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (d23relay04.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.120]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8882CE8047 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s5G18BMv37814274 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:08:12 +1000 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 s5G1OLti010903 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:24:21 +1000 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:24:21 +1000 From: Gavin Shan Message-ID: <20140616012421.GC8661@shangw> References: <1402365785-31620-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1402365785-31620-4-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1402518411.14174.173.camel@ul30vt.home> <20140612000230.GA7880@shangw> <1402537068.14174.190.camel@ul30vt.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1402537068.14174.190.camel@ul30vt.home> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 3/3] sPAPR: Implement sPAPRPHBClass::eeh_handler Reply-To: Gavin Shan List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Williamson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aik@ozlabs.ru, agraf@suse.de, Gavin Shan , qiudayu@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:37:48PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 10:02 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:26:51PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >> >On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:03 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: >> >> The patch implements sPAPRPHBClass::eeh_handler so that the >> >> EEH RTAS requests can be routed to VFIO for further handling. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan >> >> --- >> >> hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c >> >> index 592d6a4..9750cf0 100644 >> >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c >> >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci_vfio.c >> >> @@ -85,6 +85,61 @@ static void spapr_phb_vfio_finish_realize(sPAPRPHBState *sphb, Error **errp) >> >> spapr_tce_get_iommu(tcet)); >> >> } >> >> >> >> +static int spapr_phb_vfio_eeh_handler(sPAPRPHBState *sphb, int req, int opt) >> >> +{ >> >> + sPAPRPHBVFIOState *svphb = SPAPR_PCI_VFIO_HOST_BRIDGE(sphb); >> >> + struct vfio_eeh_pe_op op = { .argsz = sizeof(op), .flags = 0 }; >> > >> >FWIW, flags = 0 isn't actually necessary. I'm sure someone here can >> >quote the C spec, but it's my understanding that if any field of a >> >structure is initialized, the remaining fields are zero initialized. >> >vfio.c has a mix of initializations depending on whether using an >> >explicit value for flags adds to the code clarity. >> > >> >> Yes, but it's not harmful. Please let me know if you want me to remove >> it :-) > >It's ok, explicit initialization doesn't hurt anything here. The series >looks ok to me, but it depends on the header update, so it needs to wait >for that to happen in the kernel. I provided my ack for the other >series, but let me know if I need to push the vfio changes through my >tree. Thanks, > Thanks, Alex. The kernel part should be merged firstly. All the stuff (kernel & QEMU part) depends on Alexey's VFIO stuff. So lets wait until Alexey's VFIO stuff gets merged. That time, I guess I probably have to rebase and send out a new revision (with your ack of course). Thanks, Gavin >> I had a very quick experiment on x86 >> and Power Linux with following tiny program and the result is just >> what you think: >> >> With "struct test foo" in func2(): >> func2: foo.a=0xffffffff, foo.b=0xffffffff >> with "static struct test foo" in func2(). Here's the explaining about >> this: section 2.4.2.3 of http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html#Initializing-Structure-Members >> func2: foo.a=0x00000000, foo.b=0x00000000 >> with "struct test foo = { .a = 0 }" in func2(). >> func2: foo.a=0x00000000, foo.b=0x00000000 >> With "struct test foo = { 0 }" in func2(): >> func2: foo.a=0x00000000, foo.b=0x00000000 >> >> --- >> >> #include >> >> struct test { >> int a; >> int b; >> }; >> >> static func1(void) >> { >> int var[1000]; >> int i; >> >> for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) >> var[i] = 0xffffffff; >> } >> >> static func2(void) >> { >> struct test foo; >> >> printf("%s: foo.a=0x%08x, foo.b=0x%08x\n", >> __func__, foo.a, foo.b); >> } >> >> int main(int argc, char **argv) >> { >> func1(); >> func2(); >> >> return 0; >> } >> >> Thanks, >> Gavin >> >> >> + int cmd; >> >> + >> >> + switch (req) { >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_REQ_SET_OPTION: >> >> + switch (opt) { >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_DISABLE: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_DISABLE; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_ENABLE: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_ENABLE; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_THAW_IO: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_UNFREEZE_IO; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_THAW_DMA: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_UNFREEZE_DMA; >> >> + break; >> >> + default: >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + } >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_REQ_GET_STATE: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_GET_STATE; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_REQ_RESET: >> >> + switch (opt) { >> >> + case RTAS_SLOT_RESET_DEACTIVATE: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET_DEACTIVATE; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_SLOT_RESET_HOT: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET_HOT; >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_SLOT_RESET_FUNDAMENTAL: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET_FUNDAMENTAL; >> >> + break; >> >> + default: >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + } >> >> + break; >> >> + case RTAS_EEH_REQ_CONFIGURE: >> >> + cmd = VFIO_EEH_PE_CONFIGURE; >> >> + break; >> >> + default: >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + op.op = cmd; >> >> + return vfio_container_ioctl(&svphb->phb.iommu_as, svphb->iommugroupid, >> >> + VFIO_EEH_PE_OP, &op); >> >> +} >> >> + >> >> static void spapr_phb_vfio_reset(DeviceState *qdev) >> >> { >> >> /* Do nothing */ >> >> @@ -98,6 +153,7 @@ static void spapr_phb_vfio_class_init(ObjectClass *klass, void *data) >> >> dc->props = spapr_phb_vfio_properties; >> >> dc->reset = spapr_phb_vfio_reset; >> >> spc->finish_realize = spapr_phb_vfio_finish_realize; >> >> + spc->eeh_handler = spapr_phb_vfio_eeh_handler; >> >> } >> >> >> >> static const TypeInfo spapr_phb_vfio_info = { >> > >> > > >