On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 04:07:06PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > From: Long Li <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 10:01 AM > > [snip] > > > > > > > Basically something like this: > > > > > > #define PCI_RESPONSE_WARN_TIMEOUT_SEC 300 > > > > > > static int wait_for_response(struct hv_device *hdev, > > > struct completion *comp) { > > > unsigned long warn_at = > > > jiffies + secs_to_jiffies(PCI_RESPONSE_WARN_TIMEOUT_SEC); > > > bool warned = false; > > > > > > while (true) { > > > if (hdev->channel->rescind) { > > > dev_warn_once(&hdev->device, "The device is gone.\n"); > > > return -ENODEV; > > > } > > > > > > if (wait_for_completion_timeout(comp, HZ / 10)) { > > > if (warned || time_after_eq(jiffies, warn_at)) > > > dev_warn(&hdev->device, > > > "PCI response received after prolonged wait.\n"); > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > if (!warned && time_after_eq(jiffies, warn_at)) { > > > dev_warn(&hdev->device, > > > "PCI still waiting for response.\n"); > > > warned = true; > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > Regards, > > > Naman > > > > This looks better. > > > > I like getting the "response received" message if the response > eventually does come in. It's a judgment call, but I would be OK > with outputting the "still waiting" message after each wait interval > rather than doing it only once. And I would make the interval smaller > than 300 seconds. Five minutes is a long time to wait and wonder > what's going on when things are hung. 60 or 120 seconds would > be OK -- a line in dmesg every 1 or 2 minutes doesn't seem like > spamming to me when something is fundamentally broken. > And probably don't expect a VM in this broken state to keep running > for hours -- the sysadmin or automatic monitoring software will > reboot it to get it working again.
I will also vote for repeated message as long as interval between two messages is greater than 60 seconds. - Saurabh > > Just my $.02. Outputting the "still waiting" message only once is > also OK. Your call. > > Michael
