Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 23:13:44 +0530
From:   Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alay.shah@nutanix.com, suresh.gumpula@nutanix.com,
        shyam.rajendran@nutanix.com, felipe@nutanix.com,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI/sysfs: Allow userspace to query and set device
 reset mechanism
Message-ID: <20210318174344.yslqpfyct6ziwypd@archlinux>
References: <20210317112309.nborigwfd26px2mj@archlinux>
 <YFHsW/1MF6ZSm8I2@unreal>
 <20210317131718.3uz7zxnvoofpunng@archlinux>
 <YFILEOQBOLgOy3cy@unreal>
 <20210317113140.3de56d6c@omen.home.shazbot.org>
 <YFMYzkg101isRXIM@unreal>
 <20210318142252.fqi3das3mtct4yje@archlinux>
 <YFNqbJZo3wqhMc1S@unreal>
 <20210318170143.ustrbjaqdl644ozj@archlinux>
 <YFOPYs3IGaemTLMj@unreal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YFOPYs3IGaemTLMj@unreal>
Precedence: bulk

On 21/03/18 07:35PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:31:43PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > On 21/03/18 04:57PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:52:52PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > > On 21/03/18 11:09AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:31:40AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:58:40 +0200
> > > > > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > > > I'm lost here, does vfio-pci use sysfs interface or internal to the kernel API?
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is latter then we don't really need sysfs, if not, we still need
> > > > > some sort of DB to create second policy, because "supported != working".
> > > > > What am I missing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > Can you explain bit more about why supported != working?
> > >
> > > It is written in the commit message of this patch.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210312173452.3855-1-ameynarkhede03@gmail.com/
> > > "This feature aims to allow greater control of a device for use cases
> > > as device assignment, where specific device or platform issues may
> > > interact poorly with a given reset method, and for which device specific
> > > quirks have not been developed."
> > >
> > > You wrote it and also repeated it a couple of times during the discussion.
> > >
> > > If device can understand that specific reset doesn't work, it won't
> > > perform it in first place.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > Is it possible for device to understand whether or not specific reset
> > will work or not prior to performing reset and after it indicates
> > support for that reset method? Maybe theres problem with that particular
> > piece of hardware in that machine.
> > How can database be maintained if a particular machines have
> > particular piece of faulty HW?
>
> It was exactly the reason why I think that VM usecase presented by
> you is not viable.
>
Well I didn't present it as new use case. I just gave existing
usecase based on existing reset attribute. Nothing new here.
Nothing really changes wrt that use case.
> > If for some reason reset doesn't work it will just give -ENOTTY.
> > This isn't any different from existing behavior.Actually it informs user
> > that the reset method didn't reset the device and user can use different
> > reset method instead of implicitly using different reset method.
> > If user doesn't explicitly set preferred reset method then
> > we go ahead with existing implicit fall through behavior which will try all
> > available reset methods until any one of them works.
> > If you have device that doesn't support reset at all then you have
> > option to completely disable it unlike existing reset attribute where
> > you cannot disable reset. So it gives greater control where you can
> > disable the reset altogether when quirk isn't developed yet.
>
> I explicitly asked to hear usecase, right now, I got an explanation from
> Alex for policy decision (which doesn't need sysfs) and from you about
> overcoming HW bugs with expectation that user will be guru of PCI reset
> methods.
>
> >
> > We can't expect to develop quirk for every device in existence.
>
> It doesn't give us an excuse do not try.
>
> > For example on my laptop elantech touchpad still doesn't work in 2021
> > with vanilla kernel, arch linux applies the patch which was reverted in
> > mainline kernel for some reason.
>
> I see it as a good example of cheap solution. Vendor won't fix your
> touchpad because distros provide workaround. The same will be with reset.
>
> Thanks
>
As mentioned earlier not all vendors care about Linux and not
all of the population can afford to buy new HW just to run Linux.

Thanks,
Amey