On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:11:45PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 8/22/19 2:59 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with how sPAPR handles multifunction PCI
> > hot unplugs. The problem is that x86 does it simpler. Instead of
> > removing each non-zero function and then removing function zero,
> > x86 can remove any function of the slot to trigger the hot unplug.
> > 
> 
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_pci.c
> > @@ -1700,11 +1700,13 @@ static void spapr_pci_unplug_request(HotplugHandler *plug_handler,
> >                  state = func_drck->dr_entity_sense(func_drc);
> >                  if (state == SPAPR_DR_ENTITY_SENSE_PRESENT
> >                      && !spapr_drc_unplug_requested(func_drc)) {
> > -                    error_setg(errp,
> > -                               "PCI: slot %d, function %d still present. "
> > -                               "Must unplug all non-0 functions first.",
> > -                               slotnr, i);
> > -                    return;
> > +                    /*
> > +                     * Attempting to remove function 0 of a multifunction
> > +                     * device will will cascade into removing all child
> > +                     * functions, even if their unplug weren't requested
> 
> s/weren't/wasn't/

Actually, I think this is technically a subjunctive, which would make
it "were" rather than "was".  Modern English usage doesn't really do
the subjunctive, though.
</more-pedantic-than-thou>

With my maintainer hat on, rather than pedant hat, the meaning is
clear so I really don't care, especially from a contributer whose
first language isn't English.

> 
> > +                     * beforehand.
> > +                     */
> > +                    spapr_drc_detach(func_drc);
> >                  }
> >              }
> >          }
> > 
> 




-- 
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