On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:34:37AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 4/12/2018 10:06 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I think the scenario you are describing is two systems that are
> > identical except that in the first, the endpoint is below a hotplug
> > bridge, while in the second, it's below a non-hotplug bridge. There's
> > no physical hotplug (no drive removed or inserted), and DPC is
> > triggered in both systems.
> > I suggest that DPC should be handled identically in both systems:
> > - The PCI core should have the same view of the endpoint: it should
> > be removed and re-added in both cases (or in neither case).
> > - The endpoint itself should not be able to tell the difference: it
> > should see a link down event, followed by a link retrain, followed
> > by the same sequence of config accesses, etc.
> > - The endpoint driver should not be able to tell the difference,
> > i.e., we should be calling the same pci_error_handlers callbacks
> > in both cases.
> > It's true that in the non-hotplug system, pciehp probably won't start
> > re-enumeration, so we might need an alternate path to trigger that.
> > But that's not what we're doing in this patch. In this patch we're
> > adding a much bigger difference: for hotplug bridges, we stop and
> > remove the hierarchy below the bridge; for non-hotplug bridges, we do
> > the AER-style flow of calling pci_error_handlers callbacks.
> Our approach on V12 was to go to AER style recovery for all DPC events
> regardless of hotplug support or not.
> Keith was not comfortable with this approach. That's why, we special cased
> If we drop 6/6 on this patch on v13, we achieve this. We still have to
> take care of Keith's inputs on individual patches.
> we have been struggling with the direction for a while.
> Keith, what do you think?
My only concern was for existing production environments that use DPC
for handling surprise removal, and I don't wish to break the existing