[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 2/4] iommu VT-d: separate rmrr addition function
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 04:51:55AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:39 AM > > > > From: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In preparation for auxiliary RMRR data provided on Xen > > command line, make RMRR adding a separate function. > > Also free memery for rmrr device scope in error path. > > No changes since v5. > > > > Signed-off-by: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c | 129 > > ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c > > b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c > > index 0985150..89a2f79 100644 > > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c > > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/dmar.c > > @@ -576,6 +576,73 @@ out: > > return ret; > > } > > > > +static int register_one_rmrr(struct acpi_rmrr_unit *rmrru) > > +{ > > + bool_t ignore = 0; > > + unsigned int i = 0; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + /* Skip checking if segment is not accessible yet. */ > > + if ( !pci_known_segment(rmrru->segment) ) > > + { > > + dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX, "UNKNOWN Prefix! %04x", > > rmrru->segment); > > + i = UINT_MAX; > > + } > > + > > + for ( ; i < rmrru->scope.devices_cnt; i++ ) > > + { > > + u8 b = PCI_BUS(rmrru->scope.devices[i]); > > + u8 d = PCI_SLOT(rmrru->scope.devices[i]); > > + u8 f = PCI_FUNC(rmrru->scope.devices[i]); > > + > > + if ( pci_device_detect(rmrru->segment, b, d, f) == 0 ) > > + { > > + dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX, > > + " Non-existent device (%04x:%02x:%02x.%u) is > > reported" > > + " in RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64")'s scope!\n", > > + rmrru->segment, b, d, f, > > + rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address); > > + ignore = 1; > > + } > > + else > > + { > > + ignore = 0; > > + break; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if ( ignore ) > > + { > > + dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX, > > + " Ignore the RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64") due to " > > + "devices under its scope are not PCI discoverable!\n", > > + rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address); > > + xfree(rmrru->scope.devices); > > + xfree(rmrru); > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > + } > > + else if ( rmrru->base_address > rmrru->end_address ) > > + { > > + dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING VTDPREFIX, > > + " The RMRR (%"PRIx64", %"PRIx64") is incorrect!\n", > > + rmrru->base_address, rmrru->end_address); > > + xfree(rmrru->scope.devices); > > + xfree(rmrru); > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > + } > > above two error handling can be combined into one at the end of the > func like in other places. > > Thanks > Kevin Hi Kevin Thank you for review. I think in this case I cannot combine these two as the ret should not be set in first (ignore) branch. Looks like I placed it there by mistake. Elena _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |