On 04/06/2017 06:36 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 04:19:10PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:50:22 +0300 >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:38:22PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>> The previous intention of trying to handle all sorts of AER faults >>>> clearly had more value, though even there the implementation and >>>> configuration requirements restricted the practicality. For instance >>>> is AER support actually useful to a customer if it requires all ports >>>> of a multifunction device assigned to the VM? This seems more like a >>>> feature targeting whole system partitioning rather than general VM >>>> device assignment use cases. Maybe that's ok, but it should be a clear >>>> design decision. >>> >>> Alex, what kind of testing do you expect to be necessary? >>> Would you say testing on real hardware and making it trigger >>> AER errors is a requirement? >> >> Testing various fatal, non-fatal, and corrected errors with aer-inject, >> especially in multfunction configurations (where more than one port >> is actually usable) would certainly be required. If we have cases where >> the driver for a companion function can escalate a non-fatal error to a >> bus reset, that should be tested, even if it requires temporary hacks to >> the host driver for the companion function to trigger that case. AER >> handling is not something that the typical user is going to experience, >> so it should to be thoroughly tested to make sure it works when needed >> or there's little point to doing it at all. Thanks, >> >> Alex > > Some things can be tested within a VM. What would you > say would be sufficient on a VM and what has to be > tested on bare metal? > Does the "bare metal" here mean something like XenServer? -- Sincerely, Cao jin
