On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:06:43 +0100 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01.02.19 11:19, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:57:33 +0100 > > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> When resetting the guest we should unplug and remove all devices that > >> are still pending. > >> > >> With this patch, the requested device will be unpluged on reboot s/unpluged/unplugged/ > >> (S390_RESET_EXTERNAL and S390_RESET_REIPL, which reset the pcihost bridge > >> via qemu_devices_reset()). > >> > >> This approach is similar to what's done for acpi PCI hotplug in > >> acpi_pcihp_reset() -> acpi_pcihp_update() -> > >> acpi_pcihp_update_hotplug_bus() -> acpi_pcihp_eject_slot(). > >> > >> s390_pci_generate_plug_event()'s will still be generated, I guess this > >> is not an issue. The same thing would happen right now when unplugging > >> a device just before starting the guest. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c > >> index 867801ccf9..b9b0f44087 100644 > >> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c > >> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c > >> @@ -1092,6 +1092,21 @@ static void s390_pcihost_reset(DeviceState *dev) > >> { > >> S390pciState *s = S390_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE(dev); > >> PCIBus *bus = s->parent_obj.bus; > >> + S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev, *next; > >> + > >> + /* Process all pending unplug requests */ > >> + QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(pbdev, &s->zpci_devs, link, next) { > >> + if (pbdev->unplug_requested) { > >> + if (pbdev->summary_ind) { > >> + pci_dereg_irqs(pbdev); > >> + } > >> + if (pbdev->iommu->enabled) { > >> + pci_dereg_ioat(pbdev->iommu); > >> + } > >> + pbdev->state = ZPCI_FS_STANDBY; > >> + s390_pci_perform_unplug(pbdev); > >> + } > >> + } > >> > >> /* > >> * When resetting a PCI bridge, the assigned numbers are set to 0. So > >> > > > > I'm afraid this one doesn't quite apply without the first patches in > > the series, and I'm not sure how to fix it up. I'll either take a > > rebase on a codebase without patches 1-3, or this patch together with > > patches 1-3 after they get acks (whatever comes first :) > > > > I guess it's only the comment that get's added in patch #1, so no major > conflicts. As I'm now picking 1-3, this obviously fits without conflicts again :)