linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pci-error-recover: doc cleanup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:25:51 +0800
From:   Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:     <linasvepstas@...il.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci-error-recover: doc cleanup

Sorry for late.

On 12/09/2016 10:37 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:37:47 +0800
> Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am little confused too, even not sure if we are talking the same
>> *fatal error*, I am talking the fatal error defined in PCI Express spec,
>> chapter 6.2.2.2.1:
> 
> Therein lies my original discomfort with the change; it didn't seem to
> make sense to talk about recovering from a fatal error.  Perhaps making
> it "is done whenever a fatal error (as defined in section 6.2.2.2.1) has
> been detected that can be "solved" by resetting the link" or something
> like that to make it clear how the term is being used?
> 

I find that the .link_reset callback of struct pci_error_handlers isn't
called by anyone(if I didn't miss anything), and just a few drivers
implement this callback, and their implementation seems meaningless.

And the reset_link() provided by aer driver seems is a different thing
with .link_reset callback. So I am guessing this patch probably is not
quite suitable, and the doc maybe need update totally.

-- 
Sincerely,
Cao jin