powerpc/pci: remove pci device on a bus in reverse order

[Wei Yang]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:48:13AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:21:18PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:40:35PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>On Thu, 2014-04-12 at 03:24:37 UTC, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>> As in commit ac205b7b (PCI: make sriov work with hotplug remove) indicates,
>>>> when removing pci devices on a bus which has VFs, we need to remove them in
>>>> the reverse order.
>>>> 
>>>> This patch applies this pattern on the hotplug remove path on powerpc arch.
>>>
>>>So is this is a bug fix?
>>
>>It hasn't trigger a bug yet. I found this issue during the code reading. When
>>VFs are enabled and try to remove a bus with VFs, it will face a problem. So I
>>port the change in commit ac205b7b here.
>>
>>>
>>>Where/how have you tested this?
>>
>>I have tested after change on Power8, the EEH hotplug path works fine for PFs
>>now. Will test this when EEH for VFs are ready.
>>
>>Suggest me to keep it untill EEH for VFs are ready?
>>
>
>Please keep it and resend it (with typo fixed as I pointed) after SRIOV patchset
>gets merged. If SRIOV isn't enabled, we don't need the code change.
>
>By the way, it's something related to EEH for PFs. When PF and its VFs seat on
>same PCI bus, we should remove VFs before putting PF offline in the reversed
>order as you did in your code change. Otherwise, PF is put into offline and
>its driver disables VFs. We try redoing the removal for VFs in hotplug path,
>which would cause race condition. If VFs aren't existing, until your SRIOV
>patchset is merged, we don't have this problem. Please correct me if I
>understood things wrongly.
>

Current code is fine until VF is introduced. Yes, your understanding is
correct.

>Thanks,
>Gavin

-- 
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me