Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7] VT-d: use correct BDF for VF to search VT-d unit

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:29:58AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:52:04AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
>> When SR-IOV is enabled, 'Virtual Functions' of a 'Physical Function' are 
>> under
>> the scope of the same VT-d unit as the 'Physical Function'. A 'Physical
>> Function' can be a 'Traditional Function' or an ARI 'Extended Function'.
>> And furthermore, 'Extended Functions' on an endpoint are under the scope of
>> the same VT-d unit as the 'Traditional Functions' on the endpoint. To search
>> VT-d unit, the BDF of PF or the BDF of a traditional function may be used. 
>> And
>> it depends on whether the PF is an extended function or not.
>> 
>> Current code uses PCI_SLOT() to recognize an ARI 'Extended Funcion'. But it
>> is problematic for a corner case (a RC endpoint with SRIOV capability
>> and has its own VT-d unit), leading to matching to a wrong VT-d unit.
>> 
>> This patch reuses 'is_extfn' field in VF's struct pci_dev_info to indicate
>> whether the PF of this VF is an extended function. The field helps to use
>> correct BDF to search VT-d unit.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Crawford, Eric R <Eric.R.Crawford@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>This looks fine to me:
>
>Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>

Thank you, Roger.

>Given the issues we had before with this commit, could we please have
>a Tested-by by someone? I saw that you dropped Eric's, and I would
>like to have it again.

Hi, Eric.

Could you test this patch again and give this patch your Tested-by if it
passes your test?

Thanks
Chao


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel