On 22.11.21 12:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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".
"Make the range sets permanent, e.g. create them when a PCI device is
added and destroy when it is removed. Also make the range sets named
and accounted."
Will this work in the commit message?
>
> Jan
>
>
Thank you,
Oleksandr
