Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753332AbdHRONI (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:13:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37422 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752948AbdHROMx (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:12:53 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1C3FBC0587C7 Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=alex.williamson@redhat.com Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:12:51 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Jan Glauber Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david.daney@cavium.com, Jon Masters , Robert Richter , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vfio/pci: Don't probe devices that can't be reset Message-ID: <20170818081251.2bbffe56@w520.home> In-Reply-To: <20170818134231.GA3464@hc> References: <1502957663-5527-1-git-send-email-jglauber@cavium.com> <1502957663-5527-4-git-send-email-jglauber@cavium.com> <20170817070017.1e9c9456@w520.home> <20170818134231.GA3464@hc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1245 Lines: 32 On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:42:31 +0200 Jan Glauber wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:00:17AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:14:23 +0200 > > Jan Glauber wrote: > > > > > If a PCI device supports neither function-level reset, nor slot > > > or bus reset then refuse to probe it. A line is printed to inform > > > the user. > > > > But that's not what this does, this requires that the device is on a > > reset-able bus. This is a massive regression. With this we could no > > longer assign devices on the root complex or any device which doesn't > > return from bus reset and currently makes use of the NO_BUS_RESET flag > > and works happily otherwise. Full NAK. Thanks, > > Looks like I missed the slot reset check. So how about this: > > if (pci_probe_reset_slot(pdev->slot) && pci_probe_reset_bus(pdev->bus)) { > dev_warn(...); > return -ENODEV; > } > > Or am I still missing something here? We don't require that a device is on a reset-able bus/slot, so any attempt to impose that requirement means that there are devices that might work perfectly fine that are now excluded from assignment. The entire premise is unacceptable. Thanks, Alex