On 2014/11/14 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.11.14 at 03:21, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
Even if eventually we'll reorder that sequence, this just change that
approach to get BDF. Are you fine to this subsequent change?
You again pass a struct domain pointer to the IOMMU-specific
function. I already told you not to do so - the domain specific
I remembered this comment but I want to show this may introduce many
duplicated codes. As I understand this kind of check should be a common
thing dependent on one given platform.
aspect should be taken care of by the callback function, i.e. you
need to make SBDF available to it (just like you already properly
did in the previous round for BDF). I suppose that'll at once make
the ugly open coding of for_each_rmrr_device() unnecessary -
you can just use that construct as replacement for what right
now is list_for_each_entry().
Okay, I will try to go there.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
