Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] VT-d: Fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue

["Xu, Quan" <quan.xu@intel.com>]

+cc Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, who is also reviewing this patch.

On March 24, 2016 11:38pm, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:57 +0800, Quan Xu wrote:
> > If Device-TLB flush timed out, we would hide the target ATS device and
> > crash the domain owning this ATS device. If impacted domain is
> > hardware domain, just throw out a warning.
> >
> > The hidden device should be disallowed to be further assigned to any
> > domain.
> >
> What is "should be disallowed" supposed to mean here? Isn't the situation that,
> by hiding the device, which this patch is doing, we actually disallow any further
> assignment?
> 
> If yes, this should rather be (something like):
> 
> "By hiding the device, we make sure it can't be assigned to any domain any
> longer."
> 
> Other than this, the patch looks good to me, but I'll re-review it when the new
> version comes out (with the other patches from the preliminary series folded in),
> before saying Reviewed-by.

Dario,
What about this one:

"""
VT-d: Fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue

If Device-TLB flush timed out, we would hide the target ATS
device and crash the domain owning this ATS device. If impacted
domain is hardware domain, the error handling is just ignored.

By hiding the device, we make sure it can't be assigned to any
domain any longer.
"""

Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel