Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] vfio: ccw: Rework subchannel state on setup | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:51:03 +0100 |
| |
On 18/12/2018 18:44, Eric Farman wrote: > My questions to this patch from the original RFC series are still > outstanding. :( > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-s390&m=154223063716128&w=2
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the following of this patch series.
For your question about quiece during remove I do not think it should be a NOP, we must make sure the channel is disabled at that time.
> > On 11/28/2018 07:41 AM, Pierre Morel wrote: >> The subchannel enablement and the according setting to the >> VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY state should only be done when all >> parts of the VFIO mediated device have been initialized >> i.e. after the mediated device has been successfully opened. >> >> Let's stay in VFIO_CCW_STATE_NOT_OPER until the mediated >> device has been opened and set the VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY >> on a successful open. >> >> On release the state is set back to VFIO_CCW_STATE_NOT_OPER >> by vfio_ccw_sch_quiesce(). >> >> When the mediated device is closed, disable the sub channel >> by calling vfio_ccw_sch_quiesce(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > Ah, this series is built on Connie's async changes. Okay. [1]
Yes, and after reflections I think the timing is bad so I prefer to wait for the series from Connie on hsch/csch to be finished before going on with this series. Otherwise I fear to only add noise to the current discussions.
> >> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 10 +--------- >> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------ ...snip... >> @@ -170,6 +184,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_mdev_release(struct >> mdev_device *mdev) >> dev_get_drvdata(mdev_parent_dev(mdev)); >> int i; >> + vfio_ccw_sch_quiesce(private->sch); >> vfio_unregister_notifier(mdev_dev(mdev), VFIO_IOMMU_NOTIFY, >> &private->nb); > > [1] If Connie's async patches go in first, then the stuff in your > "vfio_ccw_unregister_async_dev_regions" is also added here. That could > be removed and replaced with a call to your new function, yes?
certainly. Thanks for your comments.
Regards, Pierre
-- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
| |