[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] xen-pciback: redo VF placement in the virtual topology
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 20:36:11 -0400
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=e7JL9BougwBdqLLM7IJdi3SWfPIdq1UHo9tiH7xcB8E=; b=aNQvqv0bVlIb3Y3qt73HsUU86Uy1+Qkx4JPBPA+fmEeCh03pB4U32UUIz5MGOX0pr6w4h/hAr8nbuc52pM7Zh6YbX36WUDi3h6Um0n3HKGGAzgfVVKjBK3v0XznL8V5k7+XLtFGJPT0M6Sotj+5bzqOB0CWEp3crkiHQF8xiH7SPhizzXJKSyrtyT9rTy0UibrsYolVdiib7xRmLfTVLMI/kfe7XsDjurQdwEy8pPKmIR3/GzPM9zQIT46NIY+Ry1M1/px83b8U/JskO8kd103Vev8ierlEQC/V1og/c3Pr2jXZEOcPvche+ocY536guPDnLxer/3OrtgURankuYaA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cmrpvx8eRHSr6+9FnaKhAQJbTHUFj5uJvxecBYtMjm4zrbmTAdjY6m3y4NBf6x4duzgojeL84OCgcLKBBSVrAHep/S25GJvDWWDOHHxWaMAGUWpzVBza7Jcl7/ewHIzhLNphgH7uxAjXdRZzo2qbX791yK95OiPKOI/BOi+pHIlFnoJxr16d6PxhDZXmw1AWpNk4ar1I7vgAL9kJpqgkytN6YBRBGpWL520cyr1Ev/2DXcgIAH0r+K5grsHjULiTXEK39R2esbrhBw4deSiNFhTH1uBQoloDr6R5HIVSrTc8aoymHQVIMX0reZMmMby5IeZg7ZM5GWQuqWVXj1sJAg==
- Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 20 May 2021 00:36:35 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 5/18/21 12:13 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> @@ -95,22 +95,25 @@ static int __xen_pcibk_add_pci_dev(struc
>
> /*
> * Keep multi-function devices together on the virtual PCI bus, except
> - * virtual functions.
> + * that we want to keep virtual functions at func 0 on their own. They
> + * aren't multi-function devices and hence their presence at func 0
> + * may cause guests to not scan the other functions.
So your reading of the original commit is that whatever the issue it was, only
function zero was causing the problem? In other words, you are not concerned
that pci_scan_slot() may now look at function 1 and skip all higher-numbered
function (assuming the problem is still there)?
-boris
|
