Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2022 03:46:06 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Wei Gong <gongwei833x@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pci: fix device presence detection for VFs
Message-ID: <20221113034519-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20221110144700-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20221111234219.GA763705@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221111234219.GA763705@bhelgaas>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 05:42:19PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:15:55PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:35:47PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
> 
> > > Prior to this change pci_device_is_present(VF) returned "false"
> > > (because the VF Vendor ID is 0xffff); after the change it will return
> > > "true" (because it will look at the PF Vendor ID instead).
> > > 
> > > Previously virtio_pci_remove() called virtio_break_device().  I guess
> > > that meant the virtio I/O operation will never be completed?
> > > 
> > > But if we don't call virtio_break_device(), the virtio I/O operation
> > > *will* be completed?
> > 
> > It's completed anyway - nothing special happened at the device
> > level - but driver does not detect it.
> > 
> > Calling virtio_break_device will mark all queues as broken, as
> > a result attempts to check whether operation completed
> > will return false.
> > 
> > This probably means we need to work on handling surprise removal
> > better in virtio blk - since it looks like actual suprise
> > removal will hang too. But that I think is a separate issue.
> 
> Yeah, this situation doesn't seem like it's inherently special for
> virtio or VFs, so it's a little surprising to see
> pci_device_is_present() used there.
> 
> Bjorn


Just making sure - pci_device_is_present *is* the suggested way
to distinguish between graceful and surprise removal, isn't it?

-- 
MST