Am 09.11.2010 14:36, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/09/2010 03:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Am 09.11.2010 13:35, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 11/08/2010 01:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> The guest may change states that pci_reset_function does not touch. So >>>> we better save/restore the assigned device across guest usage. >>> >>> Why do we care? Shouldn't the next user reset the state to its taste? >> >> Maybe he should, but are we sure this actually happens? E.g. >> pci_reset_function preserves the config state, thus does not remove the >> traces of guest. > > Oh yes, I read the code but it didn't register. Of course this change > is quite necessary. > > (I understood you to mean that the PCI 2.3 reset doesn't reset > everything, but that isn't what you said).
What the hardware makes out of the reset is even another story. No guarantees I bet (isn't function-level reset an optional thing anyway?). At least I can report that I managed to kick my Intel 82577LM into limbo land by trying to load the wrong driver in a guest - host reset was required afterward to reclaim its functionality. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
