From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932570AbdCIOqW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:46:22 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:51132 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754646AbdCIOqT (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:46:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:37:42 -0600 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: "Raj, Ashok" Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch Subject: Re: [PATCH] pciehp: Fix race condition handling surprise link-down Message-ID: <20170309143742.GA3685@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1481317564-18045-1-git-send-email-ashok.raj@intel.com> <20170203025901.GA15080@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20170203060053.GA240323@otc-nc-03> <20170203165104.GC15080@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20170307002417.GA21358@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20170308122726.6phvemtqgyowoa7l@araj-mobl1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308122726.6phvemtqgyowoa7l@araj-mobl1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:27:26AM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 06:24:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:51:04AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > Hi Ashok, > > > > Just a ping to make sure we're not deadlocked. I'm waiting for you, > > so I hope you're not also waiting for me :) I'm not trying to rush you; > > I just don't want to drop this by mistake. > > > Hi Bjorn > > no we aren't deadlocked :-). I didn't get around changing it to ordered > queue yet, mostly worried about having to retest all the different > combinations with ATTN, POWER_CTL, SLD. > > I'm depending on other folks to test SLD. They are tied up with other > issues ATM. > > I have had another OEM test with several disks and multiple ATTN's > pressed/cancel and current code seems to be working well so far, except the > SLD case. > > The change in the patch was only ensuring that we don't start another > POWER_ON or POWER_OFF before the earlier operation was complete. > > Would it be alright to fix SLD with this version while we can probe a clean > approach that can give us sufficient time to test a clean approach that works > with all the different combinations and OEM systems? This version avoids some SLD issues, but we can't guarantee that it is a complete solution. I don't really like to put in an incomplete solution because it reduces the urgency for doing a proper fix, and it also complicates debugging if we trip over an SLD issue we haven't seen yet during testing. Bjorn