Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Thu, 3 May 2018 11:02:33 +0200 |
| |
On 30/04/2018 17:47, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:55:51 +0200 > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 25/04/2018 10:44, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200 >>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same >>>> states. >>>> Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 9 --------- >>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 - >>>> 2 files changed, 10 deletions(-) >>> I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things: >>> - BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request >>> - BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it >>> >>> It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we? >>> >> I do not know what. > The BUSY state is something we know that we'll get out of soon-ish > (when the I/O request has finished). We could conceivably use a timeout > and drop to the BOXED state if we don't get an answer.
Absolutely, timeout on requests is something I wanted to do in a second series.
> > I think this plays also into the reserve/release and path handling > questions. One of the more common reasons for devices to become boxed > I've seen is another system doing a reserve on a dasd. >
-- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
| |