lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/10] vfio: ccw: Suppressing the BOXED state
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:55:51 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 25/04/2018 10:44, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:48:12 +0200
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED and VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY are the same
> >> states.
> >> Let's only keep one: VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 9 ---------
> >> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h | 1 -
> >> 2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
> > I think they were initially supposed to cover two different things:
> > - BUSY: we're currently dealing with an I/O request
> > - BOXED: the device currently won't talk to us or we won't talk to it
> >
> > It seems we never really did anything useful with BOXED; but should we?
> >
> I do not know what.

The BUSY state is something we know that we'll get out of soon-ish
(when the I/O request has finished). We could conceivably use a timeout
and drop to the BOXED state if we don't get an answer.

I think this plays also into the reserve/release and path handling
questions. One of the more common reasons for devices to become boxed
I've seen is another system doing a reserve on a dasd.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-30 17:50    [W:0.094 / U:5.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site