On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 09:07:41AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:43:03PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:49:45PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:29:48PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
Current EEH infrastructure would avoid to handle EEH
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:43:03PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:49:45PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:29:48PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>Current EEH infrastructure would avoid to handle EEH when a PE is passed to
>>>guest, while if this PE is a Child PE
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:49:45PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:29:48PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>Current EEH infrastructure would avoid to handle EEH when a PE is passed to
>>guest, while if this PE is a Child PE of the one hit EEH, host would handle
>>this. By doing so,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:29:48PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>Current EEH infrastructure would avoid to handle EEH when a PE is passed to
>guest, while if this PE is a Child PE of the one hit EEH, host would handle
>this. By doing so, this would leads to guest hang. The correct way is
>avoid to
Current EEH infrastructure would avoid to handle EEH when a PE is passed to
guest, while if this PE is a Child PE of the one hit EEH, host would handle
this. By doing so, this would leads to guest hang. The correct way is
avoid to handle it on host and let guest to recover.
This patch avoids to
