+static int disable_region(struct cxl_region *region)
+{
+ const char *devname = cxl_region_get_devname(region);
+ struct daxctl_region *dax_region;
+ struct daxctl_memory *mem;
+ struct daxctl_dev *dev;
+ int failed = 0, rc;
+
+ dax_region = cxl_region_get_daxctl_region(region);
+ if (!dax_region)
+ goto out;
+
+ daxctl_dev_foreach(dax_region, dev) {
+ mem = daxctl_dev_get_memory(dev);
+ if (!mem)
+ return -ENXIO;
+
+ /*
+ * If memory is still online and user wants to force it, attempt
+ * to offline it.
+ */
+ if (daxctl_memory_is_online(mem)) {
+ rc = daxctl_memory_offline(mem);
+ if (rc < 0) {
+ log_err(&rl, "%s: unable to offline %s: %s\n",
+ devname,
+ daxctl_dev_get_devname(dev),
+ strerror(abs(rc)));
+ if (!param.force)
+ return rc;
+
+ failed++;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (failed) {
+ log_err(&rl, "%s: Forcing region disable without successful
offline.\n",
+ devname);
+ log_err(&rl, "%s: Physical address space has now been permanently
leaked.\n",
+ devname);
+ log_err(&rl, "%s: Leaked address cannot be recovered until a
reboot.\n",
+ devname);
+ }
+
static int do_region_xable(struct cxl_region *region, enum region_actions
action)
{
switch (action) {
case ACTION_ENABLE:
return cxl_region_enable(region);
case ACTION_DISABLE:
- return cxl_region_disable(region);
+ return disable_region(region);
case ACTION_DESTROY:
return destroy_region(region);
default:
Hi Dave
In this patch, a new function 'disable_region(region)' has been added.
When using the 'cxl destroy-region region0 -f' command, there's a check
first, followed by the 'destroy-region' operation. In terms of
user-friendliness, which function is more user-friendly:
'cxl_region_disable(region)' or 'disable_region(region)'?
Attach destroy_region section code
static int destroy_region(struct cxl_region *region)
{
const char *devname = cxl_region_get_devname(region);
unsigned int ways, i;
int rc;
/* First, unbind/disable the region if needed */
if (cxl_region_is_enabled(region)) {
if (param.force) {
rc = cxl_region_disable(region);
if (rc) {
log_err(&rl, "%s: error disabling region: %s\n",
devname, strerror(-rc));
return rc;
}
} else {
log_err(&rl, "%s active. Disable it or use --force\n",
devname);
return -EBUSY;
}
}
I have considered two options for your reference:
1.Assuming the user hasn't executed the 'cxl disable-region region0'
command and directly runs 'cxl destroy-region region0 -f', using the
'disable_region(region)' function to first take the region offline and
then disable it might be more user-friendly.
2.If the user executes the 'cxl disable-region region0' command but
fails to take it offline successfully, then runs 'cxl destroy-region
region0 -f', using the 'cxl_region_disable(region)' function to directly
'disable region' and then 'destroy region' would also be reasonable.
