lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 0/9] Address error and recovery for AER and DPC
On 2018-05-01 04:10, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:00:52AM +0530, poza@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2018-04-23 20:53, Oza Pawandeep wrote:
>> > This patch set brings in error handling support for DPC
>> >
>> > The current implementation of AER and error message broadcasting to the
>> > EP driver is tightly coupled and limited to AER service driver.
>> > It is important to factor out broadcasting and other link handling
>> > callbacks. So that not only when AER gets triggered, but also when DPC
>> > get
>> > triggered (for e.g. ERR_FATAL), callbacks are handled appropriately.
>> >
>> > The goal of the patch-set is:
>> > DPC should handle the error handling and recovery similar to AER,
>> > because
>> > finally both are attempting recovery in some or the other way,
>> > and for that error handling and recovery framework has to be loosely
>> > coupled.
>> > ...
>
>> Hi Bjorn,
>>
>> I know I need to rebase this whole patch-set to 4.17 now.
>>
>> But before I do that, can you please help to comment.
>
> My overall comment is that I think the series will be simpler and read
> better if you first change AER to do remove/re-enumerate, before doing
> anything with DPC.
>
> This could be done by extracting just the AER part of "PCI/AER/DPC:
> Align FATAL error handling for AER and DPC" (i.e., adding
> pcie_do_fatal_recovery()) and moving that to be the very first patch.
>
> It's a small change in terms of code size, but significant to drivers,
> and it's really the core of the series, so it would be good to clearly
> establish the policy of:
>
> ERR_NONFATAL => call driver recovery entry points
> ERR_FATAL => remove and re-enumerate
>
> before bringing DPC into the picture.
>
> Then the subsequent patches would all be more or less mechanical
> changes to make DPC follow the same model.

ok I have taken care of you comment, please follow v15, coming next.
I could not make that the first patch, because I needed to unify
pci_wait_for_link function.
hence it is the second patch, but now the order looks quiet obvious and
simplified.

Regards,
Oza.

>
> Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-01 12:01    [W:0.082 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site