On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:36:01PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>On 10/30/2015 05:52 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:33:49PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>On 10/26/2015 02:15 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>VFs and their corresponding pci_dn instances are created and released
>>>>dynamically as their PF's SRIOV capability is enabled and disabled.
>>>>The patch creates and releases EEH devices for VFs when creating and
>>>>releasing their pci_dn instances, which means EEH devices and pci_dn
>>>>instances have same life cycle. Also, VF's EEH device is identified
>>>>by (struct eeh_dev::physfn).
>>>
>>>
>>>The add_dev_pci_data() helper (the one you hack) does not create pci_dn
>>>instances. The add_one_dev_pci_data() helper does.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, you are right. The patch here create edev after the pci_dn is created.
>>
>>So which part in the log you think is not accurate?
>
>
>The commit log is ok, I just thought loud that eeh_dev_init() could go to
>add_one_dev_pci_data() to make things more clear.
>
I thought this is are good suggestion.
My thought is, when we don't have VF, pci_dn and edev are two different thing.
We create pci_dn first and then initialize the edev. So mix the initialization
of them together is not that clear.
Not sure you agree or not.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>[gwshan: changelog and removed CONFIG_PCI_IOV]
>>>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiy...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>Acked-by: Gavin Shan <gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>---
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h | 1 +
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>>>index c5eb86f..6c383ad 100644
>>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
>>>>@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ struct eeh_dev {
>>>> struct pci_controller *phb; /* Associated PHB */
>>>> struct pci_dn *pdn; /* Associated PCI device node */
>>>> struct pci_dev *pdev; /* Associated PCI device */
>>>>+ struct pci_dev *physfn; /* Associated PF PORT */
>>>> struct pci_bus *bus; /* PCI bus for partial hotplug */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>>index f771130..f0ddde7 100644
>>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>>@@ -180,7 +180,9 @@ static struct pci_dn *add_one_dev_pci_data(struct
>>>>pci_dn *parent,
>>>> struct pci_dn *add_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>> {
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>>>+ struct pci_controller *hose = pci_bus_to_host(pdev->bus);
>>>> struct pci_dn *parent, *pdn;
>>>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>>> int i;
>>>>
>>>> /* Only support IOV for now */
>>>>@@ -206,6 +208,9 @@ struct pci_dn *add_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>> __func__, i);
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>+ eeh_dev_init(pdn, hose);
>>>>+ edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
>>>
>>>
>>>In theory, pdn_to_eeh_dev() can return NULL. In this patch, it is not clear
>>>if pdn->edev gets initialized before or after add_dev_pci_data().
>>>
>>
>>Yep, the return value should be checked.
>
>May be BUG_ON will be enough, up to you.
>
Yep, thanks.
>
>>
>>pdn->edev is initialized in eeh_dev_init() which is called in
>>add_dev_pci_data(). The order is not clear?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>+ edev->physfn = pdev;
>>>> }
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_IOV */
>>>>
>>>>@@ -254,10 +259,17 @@ void remove_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>> for (i = 0; i < pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev); i++) {
>>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(pdn, tmp,
>>>> &parent->child_list, list) {
>>>>+ struct eeh_dev *edev;
>>>> if (pdn->busno != pci_iov_virtfn_bus(pdev, i) ||
>>>> pdn->devfn != pci_iov_virtfn_devfn(pdev, i))
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>>+ edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn);
>>>>+ if (edev) {
>>>>+ pdn->edev = NULL;
>>>>+ kfree(edev);
>>>>+ }
>>>>+
>>>> if (!list_empty(&pdn->list))
>>>> list_del(&pdn->list);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>--
>Alexey
--
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
