On 21.05.14 07:03, Gavin Shan wrote:
If we detects frozen state on PE that has been passed to guest, we
needn't handle it. Instead, we rely on the guest to detect and recover
it. The patch avoid EEH event on the frozen passed PE so that the guest
can have chance to handle that.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8 ++++++++
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
index 2aaf90e..25fd12d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c
@@ -400,6 +400,14 @@ int eeh_dev_check_failure(struct eeh_dev *edev)
if (ret > 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+ * If the PE has been passed to guest, we won't check the
+ * state. Instead, let the guest handle it if the PE has
What guest? The kernel doesn't care whether we use VFIO for a guest or not.
Alex
+ * been frozen.
+ */
+ if (eeh_pe_passed(pe))
+ return 0;
+
/* If we already have a pending isolation event for this
* slot, we know it's bad already, we don't need to check.
* Do this checking under a lock; as multiple PCI devices
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
index 1b5982f..03a3ed2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-ioda.c
@@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int ioda_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe)
opal_pci_eeh_freeze_clear(phb->opal_id,
frozen_pe_no,
OPAL_EEH_ACTION_CLEAR_FREEZE_ALL);
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
- } else if ((*pe)->state & EEH_PE_ISOLATED) {
+ } else if ((*pe)->state & EEH_PE_ISOLATED ||
+ eeh_pe_passed(*pe)) {
ret = EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE;
} else {
pr_err("EEH: Frozen PHB#%x-PE#%x (%s)
detected\n",
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
