similar to: [PATCH 0/1] virtio_ccw: exploit virtio_break_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

When a device is lost, the common I/O layer calls the notification handler with CIO_GONE: In that event, flag device_lost as true. In case the device had been flagged as lost when the remove/offline callbacks are called, call the new virtio_break_device() function prior to invoking device_unregister(). This avoids hangs of I/O triggered via the device unregistration callbacks. Signed-off-by:

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

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

Hi, here is an updated patch-set with changes as suggested by Michael Tsirkin. 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

Hi, here is an updated patch-set with changes as suggested by Michael Tsirkin. 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

Michael, Conny, it seems that this patch did not make it into 4.16-rc1. On 12/18/2017 05:21 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> > > Suspend/Resume to/from disk currently fails. Let us wire > up the necessary callbacks. This is mostly just forwarding > the requests to the virtio drivers. The only thing that > has to be done

Michael, Conny, it seems that this patch did not make it into 4.16-rc1. On 12/18/2017 05:21 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> > > Suspend/Resume to/from disk currently fails. Let us wire > up the necessary callbacks. This is mostly just forwarding > the requests to the virtio drivers. The only thing that > has to be done

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