On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 04:09:59PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/23/21 10:40 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:10:22PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 3/22/21 10:12 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:07:36PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This series adds 2 new QAPI events, DEVICE_NOT_DELETED and
> > > > > DEVICE_UNPLUG_ERROR. They were (and are still being) discussed in [1].
> > > > > 
> > > > > Patches 1 and 3 are independent of the ppc patches and can be applied
> > > > > separately. Patches 2 and 4 are based on David's ppc-for-6.0 branch and
> > > > > are dependent on the QAPI patches.
> > > > 
> > > > Implementation looks fine, but I think there's a bit more to discuss
> > > > before we can apply.
> > > > 
> > > > I think it would make sense to re-order this and put UNPLUG_ERROR
> > > > first.  Its semantics are clearer, and I think there's a stronger case
> > > > for it.
> > > 
> > > Alright
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm a bit less sold on DEVICE_NOT_DELETED, after consideration.  Does
> > > > it really tell the user/management anything useful beyond what
> > > > receiving neither a DEVICE_DELETED nor a DEVICE_UNPLUG_ERROR does?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It informs that the hotunplug operation exceed the timeout that QEMU
> > > internals considers adequate, but QEMU can't assert that it was caused
> > > by an error or an unexpected delay. The end result is that the device
> > > is not going to be deleted from QMP, so DEVICE_NOT_DELETED.
> > 
> > Is it, though?  I mean, it is with this implementation for papr:
> > because we clear the unplug_requested flag, even if the guest later
> > tries to complete the unplug, it will fail.
> > 
> > But if I understand what Markus was saying correctly, that might not
> > be possible for all hotplug systems.  I believe Markus was suggesting
> > that DEVICE_NOT_DELETED could just mean that we haven't deleted the
> > device yet, but it could still happen later.
> > 
> > And in that case, I'm not yet sold on the value of a message that
> > essentially just means "Ayup, still dunno what's happening, sorry".
> > 
> > > Perhaps we should just be straightforward and create a DEVICE_UNPLUG_TIMEOUT
> > > event.
> > 
> > Hm... what if we added a "reason" field to UNPLUG_ERROR.  That could
> > be "guest rejected hotplug", or something more specific, in the rare
> > case that the guest has a way of signalling something more specific,
> > or "timeout" - but the later *only* to be sent in cases where on the
> > timeout we're able to block any later completion of the unplug (as we
> > can on papr).
> 
> I believe that's already covered by the existing API:
> 
> 
> +# @DEVICE_UNPLUG_ERROR:
> +#
> +# Emitted when a device hot unplug error occurs.
> +#
> +# @device: device name
> +#
> +# @msg: Informative message

Oh, sorry, I missed that

> The 'informative message' would be the reason the event occurred. In patch
> 4/4, for the memory hotunplug refused by the guest, it is being set as:
> 
>      qapi_error = g_strdup_printf("Memory hotunplug rejected by the guest "
>                                   "for device %s", dev->id);
>      qapi_event_send_device_unplug_error(dev->id, qapi_error);
> 
> 
> 
> We could use the same DEVICE_UNPLUG_ERROR event in the CPU hotunplug timeout
> case (currently on patch 2/4) by just changing 'msg', e.g.:
> 
> 
>      qapi_error = g_strdup_printf("CPU hotunplug timeout for device %s", dev->id);
>      qapi_event_send_device_unplug_error(dev->id, qapi_error);

I think that makes sense for the cases on papr.  Less sure about the
cases Markus has mentioned.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson