| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: VT-d device assignment may fail (regression from Xen c/s
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.
Agree!
Regards,
Weidong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home