[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170308122726.6phvemtqgyowoa7l@araj-mobl1>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 04:27:26 -0800
From: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pciehp: Fix race condition handling surprise link-down
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 06:24:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:51:04AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> Hi Ashok,
>
> Just a ping to make sure we're not deadlocked. I'm waiting for you,
> so I hope you're not also waiting for me :) I'm not trying to rush you;
> I just don't want to drop this by mistake.
>
Hi Bjorn
no we aren't deadlocked :-). I didn't get around changing it to ordered
queue yet, mostly worried about having to retest all the different
combinations with ATTN, POWER_CTL, SLD.
I'm depending on other folks to test SLD. They are tied up with other
issues ATM.
I have had another OEM test with several disks and multiple ATTN's
pressed/cancel and current code seems to be working well so far, except the
SLD case.
The change in the patch was only ensuring that we don't start another
POWER_ON or POWER_OFF before the earlier operation was complete.
Would it be alright to fix SLD with this version while we can probe a clean
approach that can give us sufficient time to test a clean approach that works
with all the different combinations and OEM systems?
Cheers
Ashok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists