Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 17/22] s390: vfio-ap: zeroize the AP queues.
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        kwankhede@nvidia.com, bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com,
        fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com
References: <1534196899-16987-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1534196899-16987-18-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180815182401.4cfa0a78.cohuck@redhat.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:36:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180815182401.4cfa0a78.cohuck@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <59fddbc0-49f5-c83b-144f-7390b80dfc9f@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/15/2018 12:24 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:14 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Nit: please drop the leading period in the subject.

I assume you mean the ending period?

>
>> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Let's call PAPQ(ZAPQ) to zeroize a queue:
>>
>> * For each queue configured for a mediated matrix device
>>    when it is released.
>>
>> Zeroizing a queue resets the queue, clears all pending
>> messages for the queue entries and disables adapter interruptions
>> associated with the queue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
>> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>
>> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index 3e8534b..34f982a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -74,4 +74,29 @@ struct ap_matrix_mdev {
>>   extern int vfio_ap_mdev_register(void);
>>   extern void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(void);
>>   
>> +static inline int vfio_ap_reset_queue(unsigned int apid, unsigned int apqi,
>> +				      unsigned int retry)
>> +{
>> +	struct ap_queue_status status;
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		status = ap_zapq(AP_MKQID(apid, apqi));
>> +		switch (status.response_code) {
>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL:
>> +			return 0;
>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_RESET_IN_PROGRESS:
>> +		case AP_RESPONSE_BUSY:
>> +			msleep(20);
>> +			break;
>> +		default:
>> +			pr_warn("%s: error zeroizing %02x.%04x: response code %d\n",
>> +				VFIO_AP_MODULE_NAME, apid, apqi,
>> +				status.response_code);
> How can we end up here? Does this mean that we just don't know what to
> do with this response, or is this something that should never happen?
> (How much sense does it make to print an error?)

There are additional response codes that could be returned; for example,
in the case of a catastrophic failure such as: The function can not be
performed because the AP was somehow deconfigured or the functiona
cannot be performed due to a machine check failure that caused the AP
path to be removed. It shouldn't happen, but all are possibilities.
I can get rid of the message and just return -EIO if you prefer.

>
>> +			return -EIO;
>> +		}
>> +	} while (retry--);
>> +
>> +	return -EBUSY;
>> +}
>> +
>>   #endif /* _VFIO_AP_PRIVATE_H_ */