[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4] x86/msi: fix locking for SR-IOV devices
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:11:12 -0400
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=suse.com smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0)
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; 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=7tVBfLY9awWvParslg+FQ+6B/EyqL0yQajWNCkd80W8=; b=hldf85TIfCtbbrTceg3S+HYNYNV6sP/CW+DFpSA+dX8AJttyU3moFTGkXWuwnUZwEq0gZ8OaQxSmgffCrmtNTb6vE0pFGkZx1jmHVfWUeyv9lRcZ4ILfnws6XLmoiqyiCt9BO8ZJ2Xsk7eIO2Zxy0t+q28G7riTns4mEUaySc8hw+hNpX+nXMHM3hVh+UFaN7vBv91xLmT8MmJS0OPW9+pk8McCJ+V5pKPCz0ClNKOQQ+e6k629dDkk0kttXwX3ZmiFMYcBTKBD+Xi9ktAgx2HWdzTJZe7LW1/3RN/NNtyLLY2AbzRjKKJ9IHd4719jorG3a7GMbkDMdeaA/fgFGGA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=yatGcyxwIVcjGqktsGAp/tAFaHQq5fzEz98P1W6czr+uFwdaMv1W/UX9KM2eU2YEB2HzqJPgHdziSI8/uWcIdPMzwYBx1jWzK3ugs1e0WQNe4F/BcQiR3jrNbBfQxgShCQb2uOATnRN16gNAauiEaUAQV5PQdipFB/LnErTtACqElwjyrO2w0yiJGmxcd52IyZWqO8ahakmlN8lV5k1ASKTgViekQEMPEYorMqyGeFRzPE4O0nWo6RqThcR4LZ1pE3P57MsxbH3KzfSxtXABh56+/kYZFIEsOyqyO3849Exd3DtY0uCNgVW4+a/XPEv5SHrALDiBGVNDsNt9M2Zn1A==
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Teddy Astie <teddy.astie@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 14:11:44 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 8/28/24 06:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.08.2024 05:59, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(vf_pdev, tmp,
>> &pdev->physfn.vf_list,
>> + virtfn.entry)
>> + ret = pci_remove_device(vf_pdev->sbdf.seg,
>> + vf_pdev->sbdf.bus,
>> + vf_pdev->sbdf.devfn) ?: ret;
>
> And if this fails, the VF will still remain orphaned. I think in the
> model I had suggested no such risk would exist.
Are you referring to your suggestion "to refuse the request (in
pci_remove_device()) when the list isn't empty" ? [1] Or something else?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/74f88a45-a632-4ca6-9cee-95f52370b397@xxxxxxxx/
|
