[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180430174718.7b1e5651.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:47:18 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:55:51 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.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@...ux.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@...ux.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.
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists