This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: VT-d device assignment may fail (regression from Xen c/s

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: VT-d device assignment may fail (regression from Xen c/s 19805:2f1fa2215e60)
From: Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:26:27 +0800
Cc: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:27:17 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4CC8133C020000780001F6A5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4CC17FE5020000780001E91F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CC7BBFC.8010802@xxxxxxxxx> <4CC8133C020000780001F6A5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.10.10 at 07:43, Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jan Beulich wrote:
need some additional consideration, since from looking at the code
I would say that reassign_device_ownership() needs some error
handling improvements too: Currently, partial failure isn't being
handled properly at all (respective devices are left in a half way
state - no longer properly assigned to Dom0, but also not yet
assigned to DomU).
Agree. The assignment should guarantee "done" or "none".

Are you going to work on this?
Not yet. I'm working on other priority tasks.
I also wonder what guarantee there is for a device to exist at
<secbus>:00.0 (since if there is none, the same context_present()
check could at least theoretically again lead to problems as it
checks for pci_get_pdev() returning non-NULL
Finally, isn't it inconsistent that only the original device gets its
->domain set to the new owner and gets moved to that domain's
device list, but neither the upstream bridge nor that bridge's
<secbus>:00.0 get handled the same way? What if below that
Yes, it's better to do the same for the upstream bridge.

And this?

bridge a device gets hot-added? Wouldn't that device
incorrectly end up in Dom0, with no failures because the bridge
still appears to be owned by Dom0 while it really isn't?
Do you want some error message for this case?

First of all I'd want the case to be handled correctly. Only if it
really can't be handled, I'd want an error message, yes, as
silent failure leading to later mysterious misbehavior is very
hard to diagnose.


Xen-devel mailing list