[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH V7 09/11] vpci: add initial support for virtual PCI bus topology
On 28.07.22 17:26, Jan Beulich wrote: Hello Jan On 28.07.2022 16:16, Oleksandr wrote:On 27.07.22 13:32, Jan Beulich wrote:On 19.07.2022 19:42, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx> Assign SBDF to the PCI devices being passed through with bus 0. The resulting topology is where PCIe devices reside on the bus 0 of the root complex itself (embedded endpoints). This implementation is limited to 32 devices which are allowed on a single PCI bus. Please note, that at the moment only function 0 of a multifunction device can be passed through.I've not been able to spot where this restriction is being enforced - can you please point me at the respective code?Nor have I found the respective code. Could you please suggest a place where to put such enforcement (I guess, this should be present in the toolstack)?Such check should be in the tool stack primarily to give a sensible error message to the user. Yet the hypervisor needs to check itself nevertheless. You know the code you're adding much better than I do, so I guess I'm a little puzzled by you asking me to suggest a place. (And for the tool stack I guess asking tool stack folks would get you better mileage.) Thanks for the clarification.I am still getting used to the changes which that patch series makes (I didn't write that code). Asking for suggestion I didn't mean to point an exact place in the code, but rather a subsystem/software layer, sorry if I was unclear. @@ -124,6 +191,7 @@ void vpci_deassign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) if ( !has_vpci(pdev->domain) ) return;+ vpci_remove_virtual_device(pdev);vpci_remove_device(pdev); }And other call sites of vpci_remove_device() do not have a need of cleaning up guest_sbdf / vpci_dev_assigned_map?I am not 100% sure, but it looks like they don't need. On the other hand, even if they don't need that, doing the cleaning won't be an issue at all, there is a check before cleaning (which will be extended as I proposed above), so ...IOW I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have vpci_remove_device() do this as well (retaining - see my comment on the earlier patch) the simple aliasing of vpci_deassign_device() to vpci_remove_device()).... maybe yes. Shall I do that change?Well - yes please, afaic. ok, will do Jan -- Regards, Oleksandr Tyshchenko
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |