[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] qemu: Don't access /proc/bus/pci unless graphics pass-thru is enabled
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, George Dunlap wrote: > > > vid = pt_pci_host_read(pci_dev_1f, PCI_VENDOR_ID, 2); > > > @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ void intel_pch_init(PCIBus *bus) > > > > > > void igd_pci_write(PCIDevice *pci_dev, uint32_t config_addr, uint32_t > > > val, int len) > > > { > > > - struct pci_dev *pci_dev_host_bridge = pt_pci_get_dev(0, 0, 0); > > > + struct pci_dev *pci_dev_host_bridge; > > > assert(pci_dev->devfn == 0x00); > > > - if ( !igd_passthru ) { > > > + if ( !igd_passthru || !(pci_dev_host_bridge = pt_pci_get_dev(0, 0, > > > 0))) { > > > pci_default_write_config(pci_dev, config_addr, val, len); > > > return; > > > } > > > > Why are you adding this test (!(pci_dev_host_bridge = pt_pci_get_dev(0, 0, > > 0)) ? > > > > If you are worried that pci_dev_host_bridge could be NULL, shouldn't you > > also remove the assert? > > The assert is about pci_dev, but the check is about the return value of > pci_host_bridge() (to which pci_dev_host_bridge is set). If there's an > expected relationship between them, it wasn't immediately clear from the > code. I thought you were worried about the BDF being wrong (00:00.0), BDF that is the same as pci_dev->devfn and already checked by assert. However now I realize that pt_pci_get_dev could also fail because pcilib cannot read the host bridge properly so I think that the check makes sense. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |