On 24.05.2023 17:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 03:45:58PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>> @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ static int modify_bars(const struct pci_
>> struct vpci_header *header = &pdev->vpci->header;
>> struct rangeset *mem = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0);
>> struct pci_dev *tmp, *dev = NULL;
>> + const struct domain *d;
>> const struct vpci_msix *msix = pdev->vpci->msix;
>> unsigned int i;
>> int rc;
>> @@ -285,9 +286,11 @@ static int modify_bars(const struct pci_
>>
>> /*
>> * Check for overlaps with other BARs. Note that only BARs that are
>> - * currently mapped (enabled) are checked for overlaps.
>> + * currently mapped (enabled) are checked for overlaps. Note also that
>> + * for Dom0 we also need to include hidden, i.e. DomXEN's, devices.
>> */
>> - for_each_pdev ( pdev->domain, tmp )
>> +for ( d = pdev->domain; ; d = dom_xen ) {//todo
>
> Looking at this again, I think this is slightly more complex, as during
> runtime dom0 will get here with pdev->domain == hardware_domain OR
> dom_xen, and hence you also need to account that devices that have
> pdev->domain == dom_xen need to iterate over devices that belong to
> the hardware_domain, ie:
>
> for ( d = pdev->domain; ;
> d = (pdev->domain == dom_xen) ? hardware_domain : dom_xen )
Right, something along these lines. To keep loop continuation expression
and exit condition simple, I'll probably prefer
for ( d = pdev->domain != dom_xen ? pdev->domain : hardware_domain;
; d = dom_xen )
> And we likely want to limit this to devices that belong to the
> hardware_domain or to dom_xen (in preparation for vPCI being used for
> domUs).
I'm afraid I don't understand this remark, though.
Jan
