On 30/04/2018 17:47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:55:51 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25/04/2018 10:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same
states.
Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 9 ---------
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things:
- BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request
- BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it
It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we?
I do not know what.
The BUSY state is something we know that we'll get out of soon-ish
(when the I/O request has finished). We could conceivably use a timeout
and drop to the BOXED state if we don't get an answer.
Absolutely, timeout on requests is something I wanted to do in a second
series.
I think this plays also into the reserve/release and path handling
questions. One of the more common reasons for devices to become boxed
I've seen is another system doing a reserve on a dasd.
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
