On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:57:32 +0100 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> 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 > things and doesn't really. > > Let's allow to send multiple requests. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > --- > hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 38 +++++++------------------------------- > hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h | 3 +-- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) Thanks, applied.
