Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] VT-d: improve RMRR validity checking

[Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 21/01/2010 10:19, "Weidong Han" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > > Sorry this is typo.
> > > I mean:
> > > So, I think RMRR that has no-existent device is "invalid"
> > > and whole RMRR should be ignored.
> > >   
> > >       
> > looks reasonable.
> >
> > Keir, I Acks Noboru's rmrr patch. Or do you want us to merge them to one
> > patch?
> >     
> Merge them up, re-send with both sign-off and acked-by all in one email.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Keir
>
>   
Sorry, I disagree with Noboru after thinking it again. If the RMRR has 
both no-existent device and also has existent devices in its scope, we 
should not ignore it because the existent devices under its scope will 
be impacted without the RMRR. so I suggest to print a warning instead of 
ignore it. Attached a patch for it.
Signed-off-by: Weidong Han <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx>

diff -r ea02c95af387 xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c        Thu Jan 21 09:13:46 2010 +0000
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c        Thu Jan 21 18:43:53 2010 +0800
@@ -453,7 +453,13 @@ acpi_parse_one_rmrr(struct acpi_dmar_ent
             f = PCI_FUNC(rmrru->scope.devices[i]);
 
             if ( pci_device_detect(b, d, f) == 0 )
+            {
+                dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX,
+                    "  Non-existent device (%x:%x.%x) is reported "
+                    "in RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64")'s scope!\n",
+                    b, d, f, rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address);
                 ignore = 1;
+            }
             else
             {
                 ignore = 0;

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel