Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:52:17 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?5p2O5Lic5Y2H?= <lidongsheng@dayudpu.com>
Cc:     jasowang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_vdpa: Support surprise removal of virtio vdpa
 device
Message-ID: <20220111065033-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <tencent_7A45E1E967F13AE14B061269@qq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <tencent_7A45E1E967F13AE14B061269@qq.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:36:42AM +0800, 李东升 wrote:
> When virtio vdpa device removed, the abnormal damage of the device cannot be
> perceived normally, which will cause problems similar to:
> 
> 43bb40c5b926


Should include the subject of the patch too.

> Hence, add the ability to abort the command on surprise removal
> 
> Signed-off-by: dongsheng li <lidongsheng@dayudpu.com>

When removing gracefully,
I am not sure we should break device unconditionally like this
before giving drivers a chance to clean up.
Should we just do it for surprise removal?

> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> index 4a9ddb44b2a7..fd930409d190 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_vdpa.c
> @@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ static void virtio_vdpa_remove(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
>  {
>   struct virtio_vdpa_device *vd_dev = vdpa_get_drvdata(vdpa);
> 
> + virtio_break_device(vd_dev->vdev);
>   unregister_virtio_device(&vd_dev->vdev);
>  }
> 
> --
> 2.17.1