Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 02/11] vpci: introduce basic handlers to trap accesses to the PCI config space

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:38:11AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.08.17 at 16:28, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +    /*
> > +     * At this point we have the following layout:
> > +     *
> > +     * Note that this refers to the position of the variables,
> > +     * but the value has already changed from the one given at
> > +     * initialization time because write tests have been performed.
> > +     *
> > +     * 32    24    16     8     0
> > +     *  +-----+-----+-----+-----+
> > +     *  |          r0           | 0
> > +     *  +-----+-----+-----+-----+
> > +     *  | r7  |  r6 |  r5 |/////| 32
> > +     *  +-----+-----+-----+-----|
> > +     *  |///////////////////////| 64
> > +     *  +-----------+-----------+
> > +     *  |///////////|    r12    | 96
> > +     *  +-----------+-----------+
> > +     *             ...
> > +     *  / = empty.
> 
> Maybe better "unwritten"?

I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure unwritten is better,
in fact the test will write to this registers, it's just that there's
no backing handlers so writes will be discarded and reads will return
~0.

So I think "empty" or maybe "unhandled" is more descriptive.

Thanks, Roger.

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