On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:04:05AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:45:14 +0200 > Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/02/2024 10:16, Yishai Hadas wrote: > > > On 06/02/2024 10:06, Yishai Hadas wrote: > > >> On 06/02/2024 9:35, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > >>>> From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 8:48 PM > > >>>> > > >>>> This series improves the mlx5 driver to better handle some error cases > > >>>> as of below. > > >>>> > > >>>> The first two patches let the driver recognize whether the firmware > > >>>> moved the tracker object to an error state. In that case, the driver > > >>>> will skip/block any usage of that object. > > >>>> > > >>>> The next two patches (#3, #4), improve the driver to better include the > > >>>> proper firmware syndrome in dmesg upon a failure in some firmware > > >>>> commands. > > >>>> > > >>>> The last patch follows the device specification to let the firmware > > >>>> know > > >>>> upon leaving PRE_COPY back to RUNNING. (e.g. error in the target, > > >>>> migration cancellation, etc.). > > >>>> > > >>>> This will let the firmware clean its internal resources that were > > >>>> turned > > >>>> on upon PRE_COPY. > > >>>> > > >>>> Note: > > >>>> As the first patch should go to net/mlx5, we may need to send it as a > > >>>> pull request format to vfio before acceptance of the series, to avoid > > >>>> conflicts. > > >>>> > > >>>> Changes from V0: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240130170227.153464-1- > > >>>> yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > >>>> Patch #2: > > >>>> - Rename to use 'object changed' in some places to make it clearer. > > >>>> - Enhance the commit log to better clarify the usage/use case. > > >>>> > > >>>> The above was suggested by Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> this series looks good to me except a small remark on patch2: > > >> > > >> We should be fine there, see my answer on V0. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> Thanks Kevin, for your reviewed-by. > > >> > > >> Yishai > > >> > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > Are we OK here to continue with a PR for the first patch ? > > > > > > It seems that we should be fine here. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishai > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > Any update here ? > > Sure, if Leon wants to do a PR for struct > mlx5_ifc_query_page_track_obj_out_bits, that's fine. The series looks > ok to me. The struct definition is small enough to go through the vfio > tree with Leon's ack, but I'll leave it to you to do the right thing > relative to potential conflicts. Thanks, Alex, you are right, there is no need to send a PR for the first patch. Please take it directly through your tree. We don't have anything in our shared branch this cycle. Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks > > Alex >
