Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 3/3] VT-d: Fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue.

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 10:46 +0000 on 14 Jan (1452768377), Xu, Quan wrote:
> > It's not about how this specific thing can be fixed. I didn't check all the 
> > code.
> > There could be more examples, and in the future all new code need to be 
> > aware
> > that the majority of IOMMU functions may have pdev->domain changed due to
> > error. My concern is more that it's not a good design. I think it's natural 
> > to have
> > a state changed only after all existing references in the call chain have 
> > been
> > completed. Adding a new flag to delay hiding device looks much clearer to 
> > me.
> 
> It looks we are not on the same page for how to hide a device.
> Actually I have implemented these two ideas with pci_hide_device()
> or flag in previous versions.
> 
> Andrew and Tim, what's your opinion?

I have no strong opinion, since this isn't my area (and really never
was - I worked on address translation more than device allocation).
Since you ask, I don't see anything wrong with hiding the device if
you already own all the locks, and I'd be inclined to make whatever
changes are necessary ASAP after the error.  Deferring the change (and
having all callers need to look for the deferred error) sounds
fragile.

Cheers,

Tim.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel