[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XEN PATCH v8 1/5] xen/vpci: Clear all vpci status of device


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 10:00:28 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=pass header.d=amd.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=qL8Zbd0+bVxFxeNkqFUC4+wUMs3F7xlhfO3YaNDWndA=; b=nSiF4wC8SpCwGdoPJe/BfrbGcshyUI6lSc4fepiJyuvzfcFti0qosPbMPJS5OEkXymutyTXMeIxbvzBgwDUhkXNy60qcZpC/KufLCLtCDI7cDlwQztgDB7S7sROJnvCsQ1nFVZ8D0TGxLQqi1A1AVW98xKMHTJ7uptMjGfF7Y1SPCsMAu73wh0Ky5Bq7oTw115rQ+chRnC8gaLsA/1ZjebMEF8uCFIOF1JIG2NUs9teFBnwCwW5XFMWWTEVlF+KNXM+WIg1tJSQRD6TmC/7bMg9e/vkKUaS1pGUFBtMLns9/HxMTpPDSYig2o16Emipm0z4sIhxeee+1HBxI9CVEiQ==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VUOHT00a6iT92iBJBcfc4/nfl93AQLm7vMn9Eg385m74fV9Xu+pypv9vi9Xxd//1MrgTQhiVW5cN+7wJM1Mt6Jfn1Gx0SKDkUtNpxDa4ujQThrItOPUHcNuZZgjBBtT+cGcEBxMCiF6NbKO0Q+FkjvDqjJ1kx2NhJEevlHy09lHbYb+omlaTmf8izewNbtKrRNyTrZWAlZX0T3ySM8kEZSawgvNSK1v78O0ZnzAGwU6JpVVJO6NKWW42gdXCLqfZv8Fc0lk6GupeNEBnyhZ8H3RqXaDqUHSi9/kXwKs01KntVZKIr42Nsoy3mJCGlKUw/iS3IcYry+mcVCDq4OnVPA==
  • Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=amd.com;
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@xxxxxxx>, "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 17 May 2024 10:00:42 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Thread-index: AQHap3bYcGtlWtrcpEyRLTK5fjq5SLGZ1UMAgAFwSAD//9GPgIAAlWQA//+DzoCAAIa3gA==
  • Thread-topic: [XEN PATCH v8 1/5] xen/vpci: Clear all vpci status of device

On 2024/5/17 17:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.05.2024 11:28, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2024/5/17 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.05.2024 10:08, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>> On 2024/5/16 21:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.05.2024 11:52, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>>>>  struct physdev_pci_device {
>>>>>>      /* IN */
>>>>>>      uint16_t seg;
>>>>>
>>>>> Is re-using this struct for this new sub-op sufficient? IOW are all
>>>>> possible resets equal, and hence it doesn't need specifying what kind of
>>>>> reset was done? For example, other than FLR most reset variants reset all
>>>>> functions in one go aiui. Imo that would better require only a single
>>>>> hypercall, just to avoid possible confusion. It also reads as if FLR would
>>>>> not reset as many registers as other reset variants would.
>>>> If I understood correctly that you mean in this hypercall it needs to 
>>>> support resetting both one function and all functions of a slot(dev)?
>>>> But it can be done for caller to use a cycle to call this reset hypercall 
>>>> for each slot function.
>>>
>>> It could, yes, but since (aiui) there needs to be an indication of the
>>> kind of reset anyway, we can as well avoid relying on the caller doing
>>> so (and at the same time simplify what the caller needs to do).
>> Since the corresponding kernel patch has been merged into linux_next branch
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?h=next-20240515&id=b272722511d5e8ae580f01830687b8a6b2717f01,
>> if it's not very mandatory and necessary, just let the caller handle it 
>> temporarily.
> 
> As also mentioned for the other patch having a corresponding kernel one:
> The kernel patch would imo better not be merged until the new sub-op is
> actually finalized.
OK, what should I do next step?
Upstream a patch to revert the merged patch on kernel side?

> 
>> Or it can add a new hypercall to reset all functions in one go in future 
>> potential requirement, like PHYSDEVOP_pci_device_state_reset_all_func.
> 
> I disagree. We shouldn't introduce incomplete sub-ops. At the very least,
> if you want to stick to the present form, I'd expect you to supply reasons
> why distinguishing different reset forms is not necessary (now or later).
OK, if want to distinguish different reset, is it acceptable to add a 
parameter, like "u8 flag", and reset every function if corresponding bit is 1?

> 
> Jan

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.