On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:54 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 在 2021/8/4 下午4:50, Yongji Xie 写道: > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:32 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 在 2021/8/3 下午5:38, Yongji Xie 写道: > >>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 4:09 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> 在 2021/7/29 下午3:34, Xie Yongji 写道: > >>>>> The device reset may fail in virtio-vdpa case now, so add checks to > >>>>> its return value and fail the register_virtio_device(). > >>>> So the reset() would be called by the driver during remove as well, or > >>>> is it sufficient to deal only with the reset during probe? > >>>> > >>> Actually there is no way to handle failure during removal. And it > >>> should be safe with the protection of software IOTLB even if the > >>> reset() fails. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Yongji > >> > >> If this is true, does it mean we don't even need to care about reset > >> failure? > >> > > But we need to handle the failure in the vhost-vdpa case, isn't it? > > > Yes, but: > > - This patch is for virtio not for vhost, if we don't care virtio, we > can avoid the changes > - For vhost, there could be two ways probably: > > 1) let the set_status to report error > 2) require userspace to re-read for status > > It looks to me you want to go with 1) and I'm not sure whether or not > it's too late to go with 2). > Looks like 2) can't work if reset failure happens in vhost_vdpa_release() and vhost_vdpa_open(). Thanks, Yongji
