Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262429AbVCBTZE (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:25:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262427AbVCBTX0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:23:26 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:7823 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262429AbVCBTUt (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:20:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:20:43 -0600 To: Hidetoshi Seto Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linux Kernel list , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "Luck, Tony" Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] I/O-check interface for driver's error handling Message-ID: <20050302192043.GJ1220@austin.ibm.com> References: <422428EC.3090905@jp.fujitsu.com> <20050301144211.GI28741@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050301192711.GE1220@austin.ibm.com> <42255971.4070608@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42255971.4070608@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i From: Linas Vepstas Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2022 Lines: 48 On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:13:05PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto was heard to remark: [ .. iochk_clear() and iochk_read() ...] > And then, I don't think it need to have "pci" ... limitation of this > API's target. It would not be match if there are a recoverable device > over some PCI to XXX bridge, or if there are some special arch where > don't have PCI but other recoverable bus system, or if future bus system > doesn't called pci... > Currently we would deal only pci, but in future possibly not. OK, in that case, I like the names you picked. > > Yes, they should be no-ops. save/restore interrupts would be a bad idea. > > I expect that we should not do any operation requires enabled interrupt > between iochk_clear and iochk_read. why? Maybe some specific pci chipset might need this, but in general, I don't see why this should be assumed. > If their defaults are no-ops, device > maintainers who develops their driver on not-implemented arch should be > more careful. Why? People who write device drivers already know if/when they need to disable interrupts, and so they already disable if they need it. If a specific arch is using a specific pci chipset that needs interrupts disabled in order to get io error info, then the arch-specific implementation can disable interrupts in iock_clear() ... But I can't imagine why one would want to make this the default behaviour for all arches that *don't* support io error checking ... (on ppc64, iochk_clear() would be a no-op, and iochk_read() would check a flag and maybe call firmware, but would not otherwise have to fiddle with interrupts). --linas p.s. I would like to have iochk_read() take struct pci_dev * as an argument. (I could store a pointer to pci_dev in the "cookie" but that seems odd). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/