[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
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.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |