similar to: [PATCH v2 RFC 0/3] virtio: add new notify() callback to virtio_driver

Hi, when an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, running affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing when a lost block device is detected, resulting in appropriate error info. On System z there exists no handshake mechanism between host and guest when a device

Hi, when an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, running affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing when a lost block device is detected, resulting in appropriate error info. On System z there exists no handshake mechanism between host and guest when a device

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:33PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > virtio_ccw's notify() callback for the common IO layer invokes > virtio_driver's notify() callback to pass-on information to a > backend driver if an online device disappeared. > > Signed-off-by: Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> simple question: is this serialized with device removal? If

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:33PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > virtio_ccw's notify() callback for the common IO layer invokes > virtio_driver's notify() callback to pass-on information to a > backend driver if an online device disappeared. > > Signed-off-by: Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> simple question: is this serialized with device removal? If

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:12:21PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > On 21/11/13 16:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:33PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > >>virtio_ccw's notify() callback for the common IO layer invokes > >>virtio_driver's notify() callback to pass-on information to a > >>backend driver if an online device

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 06:12:21PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > On 21/11/13 16:15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:33PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > >>virtio_ccw's notify() callback for the common IO layer invokes > >>virtio_driver's notify() callback to pass-on information to a > >>backend driver if an online device

Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing when a lost block device is detected, resulting in appropriate error info. Additionally a potential

Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing when a lost block device is detected, resulting in appropriate error info. Additionally a potential

On 21/11/13 07:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:22:00PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: >> Hi, >> >> when an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, running >> affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due >> to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing

On 21/11/13 07:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:22:00PM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: >> Hi, >> >> when an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, running >> affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due >> to the lost device. This patch-set adds code to avoid further request queueing

On 17/12/13 04:42, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. >> >> When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, >> affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur >> due to the lost device. This

On 17/12/13 04:42, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. >> >> When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, >> affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur >> due to the lost device. This

On 23/01/14 05:51, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. > > Hi Heinz, > > I didn't get a response on my 'break all the virtqueues' patch > series. Could your System Z code work with this? > > Rusty. > > Sorry Rusty,

On 23/01/14 05:51, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. > > Hi Heinz, > > I didn't get a response on my 'break all the virtqueues' patch > series. Could your System Z code work with this? > > Rusty. > > Sorry Rusty,

On 19/12/13 01:19, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> On 17/12/13 04:42, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>>> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. >>>> >>>> When an active virtio block device is

On 19/12/13 01:19, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> On 17/12/13 04:42, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>>> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th. >>>> >>>> When an active virtio block device is

Hi, here is an updated patch-set to my v2 RFC virtio: add new notify() callback to virtio_driver This RFC introduces a new virtio_device entry 'surprize_removal' instead of a new 'notify' callback in struct virtio_driver. When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost

Hi, here is an updated patch-set to my v2 RFC virtio: add new notify() callback to virtio_driver This RFC introduces a new virtio_device entry 'surprize_removal' instead of a new 'notify' callback in struct virtio_driver. When an active virtio block device is hot-unplugged from a KVM guest, affected guest user applications are not aware of any errors that occur due to the lost

Add an optional notify() callback to virtio_driver. A backend driver can provide this callback to perform actions for a lost device. notify() event values are inherited from virtio_ccw's notify() callback. We might want to support even more of them lateron. notify() return values are defined in include/linux/notifier.h. Signed-off-by: Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> ---

Add virtblk_notify() as virtio_driver's notify() callback. When a transport driver is notified that a device disappeared it should invoke this callback to prevent further request queueing. Subsequent block layer calls of virtio_blk's request function will fail, resulting in appropriate I/O errors. Signed-off-by: Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> ---