[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7da53d3-1631-7d3f-5b78-15a8af30a759@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:35:39 +0300
From: Tal Gilboa <talgi@...lanox.com>
To: "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com,
austin_bolen@...l.com, shyam_iyer@...l.com, keith.busch@...el.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Ariel Elior <ariel.elior@...ium.com>,
Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Check for PCIe downtraining conditions
On 7/23/2018 8:01 PM, Alex G. wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 12:21 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote:
>> On 7/19/2018 6:49 PM, Alex G. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2018 08:38 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/2018 5:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>> [+cc maintainers of drivers that already use pcie_print_link_status()
>>>>> and GPU folks]
>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> + /* Multi-function PCIe share the same link/status. */
>>>>>> + if ((PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) != 0) || dev->is_virtfn)
>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie_print_link_status(dev);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Is this function called by default for every PCIe device? What about
>>>> VFs? We make an exception for them on our driver since a VF doesn't
>>>> have access to the needed information in order to provide a
>>>> meaningful message.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming VF means virtual function. pcie_print_link_status()
>>> doesn't care if it's passed a virtual function. It will try to do its
>>> job. That's why I bail out three lines above, with 'dev->is_virtfn'
>>> check.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> That's the point - we don't want to call pcie_print_link_status() for
>> virtual functions. We make the distinction in our driver. If you want
>> to change the code to call this function by default it shouldn't
>> affect the current usage.
>
> I'm not understanding very well what you're asking. I understand you
> want to avoid printing this message on virtual functions, and that's
> already taken care of. I'm also not changing current behavior. Let's
> get v2 out and start the discussion again based on that.
>
> Alex
Oh ok I see. In this case, please remove the explicit call in mlx4/5
drivers so it won't be duplicated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists