On 31.01.19 21:33, Collin Walling wrote: > On 1/30/19 10:57 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> Let's handle it similar to x86 ACPI PCI code and don't use a timer. >> Instead, remember if an unplug request is pending and keep it pending >> for eternity. (a follow up patch will process the request on >> reboot). >> >> We expect that a guest that is up and running, will process the unplug >> request and trigger the unplug. This is normal operation, no timer needed. >> >> If the guest does not react, this usually means something in the guest >> is going wrong. Simply removing the device after 30 seconds does not >> really sound like a good idea. It might sometimes be wanted, but I >> consider this rather an "opt-in" decision as it might harm a guest not >> prepared for it. >> >> If we ever actually want a "forced/surprise removal", we will have to >> implement something on top of the existing "device_del" framework. E.g. >> also x86 might want to do a forced/surprise removal of PCI devices under >> some conditions. "device_del X, forced=true" could be an option and will >> require changes to the hotplug handler infrastructure. >> >> This will then move the responsibility on when to do a forced removal >> to a higher level. Doing a forced removal right now overcomplicates > > nit: "over-complicates" or "over complicates" > >> things and doesn't really. > > "...and doesn't really." sounds odd to me :)
Hmm, I guess this was meant to be "and doesn't really seem to be required." :) > >> >> Let's allow to send multiple requests. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> --- > > Just a quick clean up of the commit message, and all is good. > Thanks! > Reviewed-by: Collin Walling <wall...@linux.ibm.com> > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
