From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 22:12:51 +0200 From: Halil Pasic Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vfio-ccw: Prevent quiesce function going into an infinite loop In-Reply-To: References: <4d5a4b98ab1b41ac6131b5c36de18b76c5d66898.1555449329.git.alifm@linux.ibm.com> <20190417110348.28efc8e3.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190417171311.3478402b@oc2783563651> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20190419221251.5b4aa9c8.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Farhan Ali Cc: Eric Farman , Cornelia Huck , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, pmorel@linux.ibm.com List-ID: On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:18:19 -0400 Farhan Ali wrote: > > > On 04/17/2019 11:13 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> Otherwise, looks good to me. Will queue when I get some ack/r-b. > >>> > >> I like it, but I feel weird giving an r-b to something I suggested: > >> > >> Acked-by: Eric Farman > >> > > I think r-b is fine. You did verify both the design and the > > implementation I guess. So I don't see why not. > > > > How urgent is this. I could give this some love till the end of the > > week. Should I @Connie,@Farhan? > > Having more people review it is always a good thing :) > Hi Farhan, I was starring at this code for about an hour if not more and could not figure out the intentions/ideas behind it. That is not a fault of your patch, but I can't say that I understand neither the before nor the after. What understand this patch basically does is make us call cio_disable_subchannel() more often. That is what you point out in your commit message as well. But I fail to see how does this achieve what the summary line promises: 'Prevent quiesce function going into an infinite loop'. Sorry, I can't r-b this. Maybe you can help me gain an understanding of this code offline. I guess, the approval of the people who actually understand what it is going on (i.e. Connie and Eric) will have to suffice. Regards, Halil