[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 2/2] vpci: use named rangeset for BARs
On 22.11.2021 11:50, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > > On 22.11.21 12:43, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.11.2021 11:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:28:25AM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c >>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c >>>> @@ -206,12 +206,16 @@ static void defer_map(struct domain *d, struct >>>> pci_dev *pdev, >>>> static int modify_bars(const struct pci_dev *pdev, uint16_t cmd, bool >>>> rom_only) >>>> { >>>> struct vpci_header *header = &pdev->vpci->header; >>>> - struct rangeset *mem = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0); >>>> + struct rangeset *mem; >>>> + char str[32]; >>>> struct pci_dev *tmp, *dev = NULL; >>>> const struct vpci_msix *msix = pdev->vpci->msix; >>>> unsigned int i; >>>> int rc; >>>> >>>> + snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%pp", &pdev->sbdf); >>>> + mem = rangeset_new(NULL, str, RANGESETF_no_print); >>> You are still not adding the rangeset to the domain list, as the first >>> parameter passed here in NULL instead of a domain struct. >>> >>> Given the current short living of the rangesets I'm not sure it makes >>> much sense to link them to the domain ATM, but I guess this is kind of >>> a preparatory change as other patches you have will have the >>> rangesets permanent as long as the device is assigned to a domain. >>> >>> Likely the above reasoning (or the appropriate one) should be added to >>> the commit message. > If I fold then there is no reason to add the comment, right? I'd say you still want to justify the change from "anonymous" to "named and accounted". Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |