From: Ramesh Errabolu <ramesh@linux.ibm.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
Gerd Bayer <gbayer@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: Add write-only 'uevent' sysfs attribute for PCI slots
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 14:33:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a4a641fc-97d7-4c89-8da8-b6cdaa87eec0@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260226195153.GN12611@unreal>
On 2/26/2026 1:51 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 01:31:07PM -0600, Ramesh Errabolu wrote:
>> On 2/26/2026 12:39 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:53:32AM -0600, Ramesh Errabolu wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2026 2:34 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 09:08:15AM -0600, Ramesh Errabolu wrote:
>>>>>> Add a new write-only 'uevent' attribute to PCI slot sysfs
>>>>>> entries. This provides a mechanism for userspace to explicitly
>>>>>> synthesize PCI slot uevents when needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For cold-plugged PCI devices, slots may be created before
>>>>>> udev is ready to receive events, causing the initial 'add'
>>>>>> uevents to be missed. As a result, slot specific udev
>>>>>> rules that define naming, permissions, and related policies,
>>>>>> are not applied at boot. Allowing userspace to resynthesize
>>>>>> the 'add' uevent ensures these rules are processed correctly.
>>>>> This patch sounds like a hack to me. AFAIK, "udevadm trigger"
>>>>> performs exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> AFAIK, PCI slots do not yet raise a uevent.
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> Secondly there is no uevent attribute in slot-id directory to submit requests to raise a uevent. This
>>>> patch fills that gap
>>> Please start from the beginning and explain what you mean by 'the gap'.
>>> Which scenario failed before and began working after this patch? From your
>>> description, it sounds like the behavior should already be covered by the
>>> 'udevadm trigger' command.
>>>
>>> I want to note that drivers/pci/slot.c has remained largely unchanged since 2008.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> PCI slots are surfaced early in the boot process before udev daemon is able
>> to run and process these uevents. As a consequence any uevents raised by PCI
>> slots are lost. To apply the relevant udev rules, we need to raise PCI slot
>> uevents a second time. This cannot happen if uevent attribute is not surface
>> by PCI slots.
> I don't understand what you are saying. In previous email, we both
> agreed that PCI slots doesn't have uevents and here you are again
> repeating that these uevents are lost.
>
> On my system:
> ➜ ~ ls /sys/bus/pci/slots/
> 0 12 14 8
> ➜ ~ ls /sys/bus/pci/slots/0
> adapter address cur_bus_speed max_bus_speed power
Thanks for taking time to review. Will use your example to elaborate.
Will reference slot 3
Requirement:
- Be able to define a udev rule to match a PCI slot uevent
- Enable or Disable a PCI device
Before:
- PCI slot 3 raises a uevent during boot
- This uevent is lost i.e. occurs before udevd begins to run
- Need to resurface uevents arises
- PCI slot 3 could not raise a uevent on demand
- udevd could not match any udev rule as there are no uevents
With The Patch:
- The raising of uevent during boot and it loss continues
- PCI slot 3 CAN RAISE a uevent on demand
- This is made possible by uevent attribute
- udevd could match a udev rule and apply defined configuration
>> To me the sequence is as follows:
>>
>> - udevadm submits a request to raise a PCI Slot uevent
>> - PCI slot uevent handler constructs and publishes a uevent to userspace
>> - udev daemon receives the uevent and processes it i.e. apply configuration
>> encoded by matching udev rules
> I asked slightly different question. "Which scenario failed before and
> began working after this patch?"
>
> Thanks
Before you could not match a udev rule that could be applied. The patch
if approved will allow this capability
>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-26 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-25 15:08 Ramesh Errabolu
2026-02-26 8:34 ` Leon Romanovsky
2026-02-26 17:53 ` Ramesh Errabolu
2026-02-26 18:39 ` Leon Romanovsky
2026-02-26 19:31 ` Ramesh Errabolu
2026-02-26 19:51 ` Leon Romanovsky
2026-02-26 20:33 ` Ramesh Errabolu [this message]
2026-02-27 11:23 ` Peter Oberparleiter
2026-03-02 19:48 ` Leon Romanovsky
2026-03-06 15:15 ` Niklas Schnelle
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=a4a641fc-97d7-4c89-8da8-b6cdaa87eec0@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ramesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=gbayer@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=oberpar@linux.ibm.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome