On 12.11.2024 10:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 03:07:28PM -0500, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>> On 10/28/24 14:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> if ( !pdev->info.is_virtfn && !list_empty(&pdev->vf_list) )
>>> {
>>> struct pci_dev *vf_pdev;
>>>
>>> while ( (vf_pdev = list_first_entry_or_null(&pdev->vf_list,
>>> struct pci_dev,
>>> vf_list)) != NULL )
>>> {
>>> list_del(&vf_pdev->vf_list);
>>> vf_pdev->virtfn.pf_pdev = NULL;
>>> vf_pdev->broken = true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> printk(XENLOG_WARNING "PCI SR-IOV PF %pp removed with VFs still
>>> present\n",
>>> &pdev->sbdf);
>>> }
>>
>> Yeah. Given that the consensus is leaning toward keeping the PF and
>> returning an error, here's my suggestion:
>>
>> if ( !pdev->info.is_virtfn && !list_empty(&pdev->vf_list) )
>> {
>> struct pci_dev *vf_pdev;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(vf_pdev, &pdev->vf_list, vf_list)
>> vf_pdev->broken = true;
>>
>> pdev->broken = true;
>
> Do you need to mark the devices as broken? My expectation would be
> that returning -EBUSY here should prevent the device from being
> removed, and hence there would be no breakage, just failure to fulfill
> the (possible) hot-unplug request.
That very much depends on Dom0 kernels then actually respecting the error,
and not considering the underlying hypercall a mere notification.
Jan
