From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpyOH-0006nm-7R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpyOD-0002nI-Ap for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47224) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpyOD-0002my-5D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:34:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:34:22 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170320163316-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1488180523-18137-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170313160619.28622002@t450s.home> <58CFD01F.1060508@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170320083056.3f2a5603@t450s.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170320083056.3f2a5603@t450s.home> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vfio pci: kernel support of error recovery only for non fatal error List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Williamson Cc: Cao jin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:30:56AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > What about the case where the user has not registered for receiving > > > non-fatal errors, now we send an error signal on both error_detected > > > and slot_reset. Is that useful/desirable? > > > > > > > Not desirable, but seems not harmful, guest user will stop anyway. How > > to avoid this case gracefully seems not easy. > > "Not harmful" is presuming the behavior of the user. QEMU might not be > the only consumer of these events. Is it possible to receive a > slot_reset without first receiving an error_detected? If not then we > can easily track our action for one to decide on the behavior for the > other. Thanks, > > Alex I would just pass maximum info to userspace and let it decide. -- MST