On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 07:03:11PM +0000, Rajat Jain wrote: > Hello, > > > > On a different note, I feel there is still a need to apply my original > > patch. There is still an open problem in case of spurious interrupts (or > > in any case where the condition "if (slot_status & PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_CC)" > > becomes true in pcie_write_cmd()). That is because once that happens, we > > never clear that interrupt, and no further hotplug interrupts shall be > > received unless we do that. > > > > I agree this is an issue and we should address it somehow. My > > hesitation is just that I'd prefer to do some more aggressive > > restructuring rather than apply a point fix. For example: > > OK, I'll attempt to fix it that way when I get time. > > > > > - We currently look at PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_CC in pcie_isr(), pcie_poll_cmd(), > > and pcie_write_cmd(). I think it would be better to look at it only in > > pcie_isr(). > > > > - I don't think pcie_poll_cmd() should exist at all; we should poll by > > calling pcie_isr() instead. > > > > - We need pcie_write_cmd(), but I think the way it waits is backwards. > > Currently we issue the command, then wait for it to complete. I think > > we should issue the command, note the current time, and return without > > waiting. The *next* time we need to issue a command, we can wait for > > completion of the previous one (or timeout) if necessary. > > > > But maybe we need the point fix in the interim, especially if anybody > > can actually produce the scenario you mention. > > Ok. This patch is still in patchwork, but I've lost track of where we are. Did you resolve this in the series that I just applied, or is it still an outstanding issue? Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
