| Message ID | 20181105110313.29312-1-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x/zpci: some hotplug handler cleanups | expand |
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:03:09 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > The hotplug code needs more love, but let's do some obvious cleanups > first. In the future, we want to propery make use of unplug_request() + > unplug(), instead of routing everything (especially two separate but > linked) devices via a single unplug call. Also, we want to move all > errors in plug() into the pre_plug() handler, but this will require > general PCI refactorings (moving stuff from realize() to the pre_plug/plug > handler). > > This series is based on "[PATCH v2 00/10] pci: hotplug handler reworks", > which contains one cleanup for s390x. > > David Hildenbrand (4): > s390x/zpci: drop msix.available queued to s390-next > s390x/zpci: use hotplug_dev instead of looking up the host bridge Do we have consensus on that one yet? I can take it or leave it :) > s390x/zpci: move some hotplug checks to the pre_plug handler depends on the handler rework > s390x/zpci: properly fail if the zPCI device cannot be created Waiting for a fixed patch... can queue to s390-fixes if it arrives soon(tm). > > hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >
On 12.11.18 18:14, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:03:09 +0100 > David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The hotplug code needs more love, but let's do some obvious cleanups >> first. In the future, we want to propery make use of unplug_request() + >> unplug(), instead of routing everything (especially two separate but >> linked) devices via a single unplug call. Also, we want to move all >> errors in plug() into the pre_plug() handler, but this will require >> general PCI refactorings (moving stuff from realize() to the pre_plug/plug >> handler). >> >> This series is based on "[PATCH v2 00/10] pci: hotplug handler reworks", >> which contains one cleanup for s390x. >> >> David Hildenbrand (4): >> s390x/zpci: drop msix.available > > queued to s390-next > >> s390x/zpci: use hotplug_dev instead of looking up the host bridge > > Do we have consensus on that one yet? I can take it or leave it :) > >> s390x/zpci: move some hotplug checks to the pre_plug handler > > depends on the handler rework I can pull that one out from the general handler rework (still need review either way so it could take a while). > >> s390x/zpci: properly fail if the zPCI device cannot be created > > Waiting for a fixed patch... can queue to s390-fixes if it arrives > soon(tm). Thanks! Shall I resend all or only this one?
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:34:34 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12.11.18 18:14, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:03:09 +0100 > > David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> The hotplug code needs more love, but let's do some obvious cleanups > >> first. In the future, we want to propery make use of unplug_request() + > >> unplug(), instead of routing everything (especially two separate but > >> linked) devices via a single unplug call. Also, we want to move all > >> errors in plug() into the pre_plug() handler, but this will require > >> general PCI refactorings (moving stuff from realize() to the pre_plug/plug > >> handler). > >> > >> This series is based on "[PATCH v2 00/10] pci: hotplug handler reworks", > >> which contains one cleanup for s390x. > >> > >> David Hildenbrand (4): > >> s390x/zpci: drop msix.available > > > > queued to s390-next > > > >> s390x/zpci: use hotplug_dev instead of looking up the host bridge > > > > Do we have consensus on that one yet? I can take it or leave it :) > > > >> s390x/zpci: move some hotplug checks to the pre_plug handler > > > > depends on the handler rework > > I can pull that one out from the general handler rework (still need > review either way so it could take a while). It's 4.0 material anyway, so no need to hurry. > > > > >> s390x/zpci: properly fail if the zPCI device cannot be created > > > > Waiting for a fixed patch... can queue to s390-fixes if it arrives > > soon(tm). > > Thanks! > > Shall I resend all or only this one? The last one would be great, as I think it's still 3.1 material.
On 13.11.18 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:34:34 +0100 > David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 12.11.18 18:14, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:03:09 +0100 >>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The hotplug code needs more love, but let's do some obvious cleanups >>>> first. In the future, we want to propery make use of unplug_request() + >>>> unplug(), instead of routing everything (especially two separate but >>>> linked) devices via a single unplug call. Also, we want to move all >>>> errors in plug() into the pre_plug() handler, but this will require >>>> general PCI refactorings (moving stuff from realize() to the pre_plug/plug >>>> handler). >>>> >>>> This series is based on "[PATCH v2 00/10] pci: hotplug handler reworks", >>>> which contains one cleanup for s390x. >>>> >>>> David Hildenbrand (4): >>>> s390x/zpci: drop msix.available >>> >>> queued to s390-next >>> >>>> s390x/zpci: use hotplug_dev instead of looking up the host bridge >>> >>> Do we have consensus on that one yet? I can take it or leave it :) >>> >>>> s390x/zpci: move some hotplug checks to the pre_plug handler >>> >>> depends on the handler rework >> >> I can pull that one out from the general handler rework (still need >> review either way so it could take a while). > > It's 4.0 material anyway, so no need to hurry. > >> >>> >>>> s390x/zpci: properly fail if the zPCI device cannot be created >>> >>> Waiting for a fixed patch... can queue to s390-fixes if it arrives >>> soon(tm). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Shall I resend all or only this one? > > The last one would be great, as I think it's still 3.1 material. > Alrighty, so I'll resend (after testing this time ;) ) the last patch.