similar to: [PATCH v3 RFC 0/4] virtio: add 'surprize_removal' to virtio_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 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 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 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

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:32:39AM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > Code is added to avoid calling blk_cleanup_queue() when the surprize_removal > flag is set due to a disappeared device. It avoid hangs due to incomplete > requests (e.g. in-flight requests). Such requests must be considered as lost. Ugh. Can't we complete these immediately using detach_unused_buf? If not why? > If

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:32:39AM +0100, Heinz Graalfs wrote: > Code is added to avoid calling blk_cleanup_queue() when the surprize_removal > flag is set due to a disappeared device. It avoid hangs due to incomplete > requests (e.g. in-flight requests). Such requests must be considered as lost. Ugh. Can't we complete these immediately using detach_unused_buf? If not why? > If

On 29/01/14 07:31, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> 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

On 29/01/14 07:31, Rusty Russell wrote: > Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> 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

Hi, this patch-set tries to solve various hang situations when virtio devices (network or block) are hot-unplugged from a KVM guest. On System z there exists no handshake mechanism between host and guest when a device is hot-unplugged. The device is removed and no further I/O is possible. The guest is notified about the hard removal with a CRW machine check. As per architecture, the host must

Hi, this patch-set tries to solve various hang situations when virtio devices (network or block) are hot-unplugged from a KVM guest. On System z there exists no handshake mechanism between host and guest when a device is hot-unplugged. The device is removed and no further I/O is possible. The guest is notified about the hard removal with a CRW machine check. As per architecture, the host must

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 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 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