From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, keirf@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] virtio: use virtio_device_ready() in virtio_device_restore()
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:31:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220324113126.f6f5hfabhqfyutix@sgarzare-redhat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220324070612-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:07:09AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:03:07PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 06:48:05AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 04:40:02PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>> > >
>> > > This avoids setting DRIVER_OK twice for those drivers that call
>> > > virtio_device_ready() in the .restore
>> >
>> > Is this trying to say it's faster?
>>
>> Nope, I mean, when I wrote the original version, I meant to do the same
>> things that we do in virtio_dev_probe() where we called
>> virtio_device_ready() which not only set the state, but also called
>> .enable_cbs callback.
>>
>> Was this a side effect and maybe more compliant with the spec?
>
>
>Sorry I don't understand the question. it says "avoids setting DRIVER_OK twice" -
>why is that advantageous and worth calling out in the commit log?
I just wanted to say that it seems strange to set DRIVER_OK twice if we
read the spec. I don't think it's wrong, but weird.
Yes, maybe we should rewrite the commit message saying that we want to
use virtio_device_ready() everywhere to complete the setup before
setting DRIVER_OK so we can do all the necessary operations inside (like
in patch 3 or call enable_cbs).
Jason rewrote the commit log, so I don't know if he agrees.
Thanks,
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-24 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-24 8:40 [PATCH 0/3] rework on the IRQ hardening of virtio Jason Wang
2022-03-24 8:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] virtio: use virtio_device_ready() in virtio_device_restore() Jason Wang
2022-03-24 10:48 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-24 11:03 ` Stefano Garzarella
2022-03-24 11:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-24 11:31 ` Stefano Garzarella [this message]
2022-03-25 3:05 ` Jason Wang
2022-03-30 5:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-24 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] virtio: use virtio_reset_device() when possible Jason Wang
2022-03-24 11:04 ` Stefano Garzarella
2022-03-24 8:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] virtio: harden vring IRQ Jason Wang
2022-03-24 11:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-25 3:04 ` Jason Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220324113126.f6f5hfabhqfyutix@sgarzare-redhat \
--to=sgarzare@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=keirf@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).