Re: [RFC&PATCH 1/2] PCI Error Recovery (readX_check)

From: Grant Grundler <>
Date: 2004-08-26 01:42:37
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:01:08PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Most drivers already have such a low level lock though, so we may end
> up replacing it with a bridge-based lock... but depending on the architecture,
> that would end up sync'ing lots of drivers on the same lock, which may not
> be good especially if we have no checking to do... 

multiple drivers acquiring the same bridge lock? ugh.

Which bridge sees an error may be a parent (or child) of the PCI bridge
we are monitoring. I suspect we will have to live with multiple
devices being impacted by errors on a bus and the error recovery
notify/resyncronize with all impacted devices.

Does anyone expect to recover from devices attempting unmapped DMA?
Ie an IOMMU which services multiple PCI busses getting a bad DMA address
will cause the next MMIO read by any of the (grandchildren) PCI devices to 
see an error (MCA on IA64). I'm asking only to determine if this is
outside the scope of what the PCI error recovery is trying to support.

> I don't know what is the best thing to do here... The arch is the one to
> know what is the granularity of the error management (per slot ? per segment
> or per domain ?) and so to know what kind of lock is needed...

Yeah...I guess my comments are along the same vein.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Aug 25 11:43:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:30 EST