On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:21:25 +0200
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2018 08:29, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:42:13AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> The unplug and unplug_request handlers are special: They are not
> >> executed when unrealizing a device, but rather trigger the removal of a
> >> device from device_del() via object_unparent() - to effectively
> >> unrealize a device.
> >>
> >> If such a device has a child bus and another device attached to
> >> that bus (e.g. how virtio devices are created with their proxy device),
> >> we will not get a call to the unplug handler. As we want to support
> >> hotplug handlers (and especially also some unplug logic to undo resource
> >> assignment) for such devices, we cannot simply call the unplug handler
> >> when unrealizing - it has a different semantic ("trigger removal").
> >>
> >> To handle this scenario, we need a do_unplug handler, that will be
> >> executed for all devices with a hotplug handler.
> >>
> >> While at it, introduce hotplug_fn_nofail and fix a spelling mistake in
> >> a comment.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/core/hotplug.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> hw/core/qdev.c | 6 ++++++
> >> include/hw/hotplug.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/core/hotplug.c b/hw/core/hotplug.c
> >> index 2253072d0e..e7a68d5160 100644
> >> --- a/hw/core/hotplug.c
> >> +++ b/hw/core/hotplug.c
> >> @@ -45,6 +45,16 @@ void hotplug_handler_post_plug(HotplugHandler
> >> *plug_handler,
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> +void hotplug_handler_do_unplug(HotplugHandler *plug_handler,
> >> + DeviceState *plugged_dev)
> >
> > Hrm. I really dislike things named "do_X". The "do" rarely adds any
> > useful meaning. And when there's also something called just plain
> > "X", it's *always* unclear how they relate to each other.
> >
> > That's doubly true when it's a general interface like this, rather
> > than just some local functions.
> >
>
> Yes, the naming is not the best, but I didn't want to rename all unplug
> handlers before we have an agreement on how to proceed. My concept would
> be that
>
> 1. unplug() is renamed to trigger_unplug(). unplug_request() remains.
> 2. do_unplug() is renamed to pre_unplug() (just like pre_plug())
> 3. we might have in addition unplug() after realize(false) - just like
> plug()
>
> trigger_unplug() would perform checks and result in object_unparent().
> From there, all cleanup/unplugging would be performed via the unrealize
> chain, just like we have for realize() now. That would allow to properly
> unplug complete device hierarchies.
>
> But Igor rather wants one hotplug handler chain, and no dedicated
> hotplug handlers for other devices in the device hierarchy.
Because what we are dealing here with (virtio-pmem) is not separate
devices hierarchy, it's one complex device and if we are to avoid
layering violation, we should operate internal devices via that outer
device which would orchestrate given to it resources internally as it
sees it fit.
It's similar with be spapr cpu core, where internal threads do
not have their own handlers they are plugged as the integral part
of the core.
What I'm strongly opposed is using separate hotplug handlers for
internal devices of a composite one.
I'm more lenient in cases of where the hotplug handler of a composite
device access it's internals directly if creating interfaces to
manage internal devices is big over-engineering, since all
hotplug flow is explicitly described within one handler and
I don't need to hunt around to figure out how device is wired up.
It's still not right wrt not violating abstraction layers and
might break if internal details change, but usually hotplug
handler is target unique and tightly coupled code of manged
and managing pieces (like the case of spapr cpu core) so it
works so far. For some generic handler I'd vote for following
all the rules.
In this series approach, handlers are used if they are separate
devices without explicit connection which I find totally broken
(and tried to explain in this thread, probably not well enough).
> As long as
> there are no other opinions I guess I will have to go into the direction
> Igor proposes to get virtio-pmem and friends upstream.
>
