On 22.05.14 10:23, Gavin Shan wrote:
If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed through to somebody
else. we needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the device's owner to
detect and recover it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so
that the device's owner can have chance to handle that.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I think you want to fold this with patch 1/3.
Alex
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8 ++++++++
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index b90a474..aee6cc5 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -403,6 +403,14 @@ int eeh_dev_check_failure(struct eeh_dev *edev)
if (ret > 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+ * If the PE isn't owned by us, we shouldn't check the
+ * state. Instead, let the owner handle it if the PE has
+ * been frozen.
+ */
+ if (eeh_pe_passed(pe))
+ return 0;
+
/* If we already have a pending isolation event for this
* slot, we know it's bad already, we don't need to check.
* Do this checking under a lock; as multiple PCI devices
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
index 1b5982f..03a3ed2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int ioda_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe)
opal_pci_eeh_freeze_clear(phb->opal_id, frozen_pe_no,
OPAL_EEH_ACTION_CLEAR_FREEZE_ALL);
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
- } else if ((*pe)->state & EEH_PE_ISOLATED) {
+ } else if ((*pe)->state & EEH_PE_ISOLATED ||
+ eeh_pe_passed(*pe)) {
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
} else {
pr_err("EEH: Frozen PHB#%x-PE#%x (%s) detected\n",
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
