On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 12:44 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > If we fail to to grab NIC access because the device is not
> > responding
> > (i.e. CSR_GP_CNTRL returns 0xFFFFFFFF), remove the device from the
> > PCI
> > bus, to avoid any further damage, and to let the user space rescan.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The commit log doesn't mention anything about the module parameter
> nor
> about the kobject uevent.
Good point. The uevent and the module parameter were added in later
patches and I squashed them all into this one, but forgot to update the
commit message. I'll fix it.
> > +static void iwl_trans_pcie_removal_wk(struct work_struct *wk)
> > +{
> > + struct iwl_trans_pcie_removal *removal =
> > + container_of(wk, struct iwl_trans_pcie_removal,
> > work);
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev = removal->pdev;
> > + char *prop[] = {"EVENT=INACCESSIBLE", NULL};
> > +
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Device gone - attempting removal\n");
> > + kobject_uevent_env(&pdev->dev.kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE, prop);
> > + pci_lock_rescan_remove();
> > + pci_dev_put(pdev);
> > + pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device(pdev);
> > + pci_unlock_rescan_remove();
> > +
> > + kfree(removal);
> > + module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > +}
>
> So is the uevent some standard thing or what? At least grepping
> INACCESSIBLE for didn't tell me anything.
No, this is not standard. We didn't find any appropriate standard
message for this case, so we created a new one. Also, we didn't want
to interfere with components that may react to standard messages.
This is disabled by default and the idea is to change this in the
future to allow the driver to remove and rescan the device
automatically. So we will have 3 options in the module parameter: do
nothing; auto-rescan or; send uevent.
--
Cheers,
Luca.
