On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:11:45PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 8/22/19 2:59 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with how sPAPR handles multifunction PCI
> > hot unplugs. The problem is that x86 does it simpler. Instead of
> > removing each non-zero function and then removing function zero,
> > x86 can remove any function of the slot to trigger the hot unplug.
> >
>
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c
> > @@ -1700,11 +1700,13 @@ static void spapr_pci_unplug_request(HotplugHandler
> > *plug_handler,
> > state = func_drck->dr_entity_sense(func_drc);
> > if (state == SPAPR_DR_ENTITY_SENSE_PRESENT
> > && !spapr_drc_unplug_requested(func_drc)) {
> > - error_setg(errp,
> > - "PCI: slot %d, function %d still present. "
> > - "Must unplug all non-0 functions first.",
> > - slotnr, i);
> > - return;
> > + /*
> > + * Attempting to remove function 0 of a multifunction
> > + * device will will cascade into removing all child
> > + * functions, even if their unplug weren't requested
>
> s/weren't/wasn't/
Actually, I think this is technically a subjunctive, which would make
it "were" rather than "was". Modern English usage doesn't really do
the subjunctive, though.
</more-pedantic-than-thou>
With my maintainer hat on, rather than pedant hat, the meaning is
clear so I really don't care, especially from a contributer whose
first language isn't English.
>
> > + * beforehand.
> > + */
> > + spapr_drc_detach(func_drc);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
