On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 15:53 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:11:59PM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote: > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > Sorry for the delay on this one and pushing it after RC1. > > Feel free to queue it up for 4.20 if it looks fine. > > > > I've added comments to the git log and source explaining why > > calculate_iosize was left unchanged. Basically I could not > > synthesize a condition where it would have affected the topology. > > In other words, the only reason you didn't change the > calculate_iosize() path was because you couldn't test it? > I did unsuccessfully try to synthesize it in hardware and qemu. The firmwares didn't provide the neccessary topology to hit the flexible IO provisioning conditions
> I appreciate your desire to avoid untested changes, but I think it's > very important to preserve and even improve the symmetry between > calculate_memsize() and calculate_iosize(). For example, it's not > obvious why the order is different here: > > calculate_iosize(): > size = ALIGN(size + size1, align); > if (size < old_size) > size = old_size; > I agree this part didn't make that much sense to me, which was another reason I left it as-is. Looking at it again, I think its a harmless calculation that bounds IO size tightly, but could also be reordered as below to provide for the additional IO (assuming this code ever runs). > calculate_memsize(): > if (size < old_size) > size = old_size; > size = ALIGN(size + size1, align); > > So I don't want to diverge them further unless there's a real > functional reason why we need to handle I/O port space differently > than MMIO space. > > You've tested the MMIO path, and I'm willing to take the risk of > doing the same thing in the I/O port path. > > Bjorn Great! I'll follow-up with a patch as soon as I can Jon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
