From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754701AbcLSDVb (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:21:31 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:49429 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753046AbcLSDV3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:21:29 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,518,1449504000"; d="scan'208";a="14039457" Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci-error-recover: doc cleanup To: Jonathan Corbet References: <1481184974-12505-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20161208070539.0f00ce71@lwn.net> <58496AA4.5030602@cn.fujitsu.com> <584A513B.9080409@cn.fujitsu.com> <20161209073713.43ed92ea@lwn.net> CC: , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bjorn Helgaas From: Cao jin Message-ID: <5857533F.1030904@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:25:51 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161209073713.43ed92ea@lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.69] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 0326E467049D.AA4F8 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry for late. On 12/09/2016 10:37 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:37:47 +0800 > Cao jin wrote: > >> I am little confused too, even not sure if we are talking the same >> *fatal error*, I am talking the fatal error defined in PCI Express spec, >> chapter 6.2.2.2.1: > > Therein lies my original discomfort with the change; it didn't seem to > make sense to talk about recovering from a fatal error. Perhaps making > it "is done whenever a fatal error (as defined in section 6.2.2.2.1) has > been detected that can be "solved" by resetting the link" or something > like that to make it clear how the term is being used? > I find that the .link_reset callback of struct pci_error_handlers isn't called by anyone(if I didn't miss anything), and just a few drivers implement this callback, and their implementation seems meaningless. And the reset_link() provided by aer driver seems is a different thing with .link_reset callback. So I am guessing this patch probably is not quite suitable, and the doc maybe need update totally. -- Sincerely, Cao jin