From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUSDG-0000Qc-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:58:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUSDD-0005i7-UG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:58:15 -0500 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=39013 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUSDD-0005h4-HZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:58:11 -0500 References: <1483175588-17006-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1483175588-17006-5-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170118153621.75d8b83d@t450s.home> From: Cao jin Message-ID: <5881A858.2020203@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:04:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170118153621.75d8b83d@t450s.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v11 4/4] vfio: add 'aer' property to expose aercap List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Williamson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mst@redhat.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, Dou Liyang On 01/19/2017 06:36 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:13:08 +0800 > Cao jin wrote: > >> From: Chen Fan >> >> Add 'aer' property, let user choose whether expose the aer capability >> or not. > > But that's not what it does, it only controls the behavior in response > to non-fatal errors, the capability is exposed regardless. > This commit log is legacy, and defaults to off is a result of the configuration restriction & your previous discussion, right? In current version, if 'aer' property is off, we just allocate the config space via pcie_add_capability(), we don't init the AER capability, the value is all 0s there, so does that still mean "capability is exposed regardless"? >> Should disable aer feature by default, because only non-fatal >> error is supported now. > > Why does that mean it should be disabled by default? What bad thing > happens if we enable this opportunistically? > >> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan >> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang >> Signed-off-by: Cao jin >> --- >> hw/vfio/pci.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c >> index 9861f72..fc9db66 100644 >> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c >> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c >> @@ -3057,6 +3057,8 @@ static Property vfio_pci_dev_properties[] = { >> DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("x-pci-sub-device-id", VFIOPCIDevice, >> sub_device_id, PCI_ANY_ID), >> DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("x-igd-gms", VFIOPCIDevice, igd_gms, 0), >> + DEFINE_PROP_BIT("aer", VFIOPCIDevice, features, >> + VFIO_FEATURE_ENABLE_AER_BIT, false), >> /* >> * TODO - support passed fds... is this necessary? >> * DEFINE_PROP_STRING("vfiofd", VFIOPCIDevice, vfiofd_name), > > > > . > -- Sincerely, Cao jin