From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA30C433C1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 03:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62C276196F for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 03:39:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 62C276196F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gibson.dropbear.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43110 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOXtD-0001NY-CS for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 23:39:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOXsV-0000y2-3H; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 23:38:47 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:37219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOXsR-0002IW-AR; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 23:38:46 -0400 Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 4F4HC43S4gz9sVS; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:38:24 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gibson.dropbear.id.au; s=201602; t=1616470704; bh=PAIldSaQmZR4IwjzABUp1bo/tdO4V86PHic9wh8DK7A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BMdGvMx8mVLeHlNNUl9im+n7EHCgrQesfgjO5yWyEP6XW1B3cgtwMVVKrVlhC1Xmq WTUKwlmBnSXrU/QmueXdq4o41waTnh8ECK7EezE6Tfs2domh4vJcjcC41DiKtIEc92 FYuu/xMxIPaI4LCe7l9bk94uEyiTvelPFb7MkHlI= Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:33:28 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC] adding a generic QAPI event for failed device hotunplug Message-ID: References: <87blbt60hc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <8b79c207-f653-9eec-77f1-ea46c7c75ad5@gmail.com> <87mtvczvzw.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <98d44670-5a63-1feb-aad8-9dbc62cf2e7a@gmail.com> <875z1w7ptm.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xoF3EqLcSX3H42rs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=203.11.71.1; envelope-from=dgibson@ozlabs.org; helo=ozlabs.org X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , michael.roth@amd.com, Daniel Henrique Barboza , Julia Suvorova , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Markus Armbruster , Juan Quintela , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , Laine Stump , Igor Mammedov Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --xoF3EqLcSX3H42rs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:06:53PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 22/03/21 07:39, David Gibson wrote: > > > QEMU doesn't really keep track of "in flight" unplug requests, and as > > > long as that's the case, its timeout even will have the same issue. > > Not generically, maybe. In the PAPR code we effectively do, by means > > of the 'unplug_requested' boolean in the DRC structure. Maybe that's > > a mistake, but at the time I couldn't see how else to handle things. >=20 > No, that's good. x86 also tracks it in some registers that are accessible > from the ACPI firmware. See "PCI slot removal notification" in > docs/specs/acpi_pci_hotplug.txt. >=20 > > Currently we will resolve all "in flight" requests at machine reset > > time, effectively completing those requests. Does that differ from > > x86 behaviour? >=20 > IIRC on x86 the requests are instead cancelled, but I'm not 100% > sure. Ah... we'd better check that and try to make ppc consistent with whatever it does. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --xoF3EqLcSX3H42rs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdfRlhq5hpmzETofcbDjKyiDZs5IFAmBZYYgACgkQbDjKyiDZ s5JOlhAA5yQGaEKyr62+kEWOBC6fFwtm7MnkYVuQq/qbCyUXcDoCEy0HP/GO5X96 dB3MD8dNPVxb+scCNJlVy10SEz0KBmiy5kv1T11KX3ZVamHv2fY64cY5gbfp6l76 iNpS9NoBOq9EmN2P1zlkZ+lP4Pqprrn7xTFhoMWTu3wFhJESRdIxdrqaPpJbM7J5 oOLkiGI/+Sji2fgAnSvZLYqEdVNThc5Jj5AtSn1kkTPwEFyFN7G1gju6wrqrU6Kt T7hV+f+wTaBIPktFm9DPaTy4Ripsuw3lBKnno6GvywHSDEoQTdlJcwvn8DJMyTE5 EG2fSk8O2bamYB6ZVxmIkY5uTaRUBJTcwp6vSfE8jB9StkHPF4JD9VJmUpWTQKc1 O7OxIkwPoH49V7jdO4KiOe+vptKIEq3z1ms3HkGGmCFlb2CrOSuQFe8OPGe3cuie KJKmhzCLrVCqY4SQBEsNEN6oR3NgfSjqjIse4GI9/AYd1cyBeBcC+7n8NLFBznaU 0C+na4DllQtVh8YL+KmUzthmhhBeCIdjudEspKqgA1Bx1Mhemps2dohg89d2hqNy FTLFMvELlZRfB54XjVsv+AuAhtCXc9oiZnSRy/hBjlhTw5vjCTuXU5ZM4da6x3dr 44oDDnyBqeq/cogKvgZzOIsxijqCWsuoXaZ3G7rIZXbxi+7F1WY= =NJK9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xoF3EqLcSX3H42rs--