On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 05:42:19PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:15:55PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:35:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > ... > > > > Prior to this change pci_device_is_present(VF) returned "false" > > > (because the VF Vendor ID is 0xffff); after the change it will return > > > "true" (because it will look at the PF Vendor ID instead). > > > > > > Previously virtio_pci_remove() called virtio_break_device(). I guess > > > that meant the virtio I/O operation will never be completed? > > > > > > But if we don't call virtio_break_device(), the virtio I/O operation > > > *will* be completed? > > > > It's completed anyway - nothing special happened at the device > > level - but driver does not detect it. > > > > Calling virtio_break_device will mark all queues as broken, as > > a result attempts to check whether operation completed > > will return false. > > > > This probably means we need to work on handling surprise removal > > better in virtio blk - since it looks like actual suprise > > removal will hang too. But that I think is a separate issue. > > Yeah, this situation doesn't seem like it's inherently special for > virtio or VFs, so it's a little surprising to see > pci_device_is_present() used there. > > Bjorn Just making sure - pci_device_is_present *is* the suggested way to distinguish between graceful and surprise removal, isn't it? -- MST
