[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] arm/vpci: honor access size when returning an error
- To: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:32:27 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 15 May 2024 06:32:37 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 14.05.2024 22:31, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
> Here's what the patch ("arm/vpci: honor access size when returning an
> error") now looks like based on staging:
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vpci.c b/xen/arch/arm/vpci.c
> index 3bc4bb55082a..31e9e1d20751 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vpci.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vpci.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static int vpci_mmio_read(struct vcpu *v, mmio_info_t *info,
> {
> struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = p;
> pci_sbdf_t sbdf = vpci_sbdf_from_gpa(bridge, info->gpa);
> + const uint8_t access_size = (1U << info->dabt.size) * 8;
And why exactly uint8_t here, rather than unsigned int? See ./CODING_STYLE.
> + const uint64_t invalid = GENMASK_ULL(access_size - 1, 0);
I'm not entirely convinced of uint64_t here either, but I'd view this as
more borderline than the uint8_t above. As per ...
> @@ -39,7 +41,7 @@ static int vpci_mmio_read(struct vcpu *v, mmio_info_t *info,
> return 1;
> }
>
> - *r = ~0ul;
> + *r = invalid;
... the original rhs here, unsigned long (or perhaps register_t) would seem
more appropriate, but I have no idea whether on Arm32 info->dabt.size can
end up being 3.
Jan
|
