| Message ID | 1524149293-12658-10-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
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?
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.
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.
On 30/04/2018 17:47, Cornelia Huck wrote: > 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. Absolutely, timeout on requests is something I wanted to do in a second series. > > 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. >
diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c index 444424e..b77b8ad 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c @@ -261,15 +261,6 @@ fsm_func_t *vfio_ccw_jumptable[NR_VFIO_CCW_STATES][NR_VFIO_CCW_EVENTS] = { [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT] = fsm_irq, [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_SCH_EVENT] = fsm_sch_event, }, - [VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED] = { - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INIT] = fsm_nop, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_ONLINE] = fsm_nop, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_OFFLINE] = fsm_quiescing, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_NOT_OPER] = fsm_notoper, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_SSCH_REQ] = fsm_io_busy, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INTERRUPT] = fsm_irq, - [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_SCH_EVENT] = fsm_sch_event, - }, [VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY] = { [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_INIT] = fsm_nop, [VFIO_CCW_EVENT_ONLINE] = fsm_nop, diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h index e7ea076..dbef727 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_private.h @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ enum vfio_ccw_state { VFIO_CCW_STATE_NOT_OPER, VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY, VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE, - VFIO_CCW_STATE_BOXED, VFIO_CCW_STATE_BUSY, VFIO_CCW_STATE_QUIESCING, /* last element! */
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(-)