On 25.05.2023 17:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.05.2023 17:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:39:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> 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 )
>>
>> LGTM. I would add parentheses around the pdev->domain != dom_xen
>> condition, but that's just my personal taste.
>>
>> We might want to add an
>>
>> ASSERT(pdev->domain == hardware_domain || pdev->domain == dom_xen);
>>
>> here, just to remind that this chunk must be revisited when adding
>> domU support (but you can also argue we haven't done this elsewhere),
>> I just feel here it's not so obvious we don't want do to this for
>> domUs.
>
> I could add such an assertion, if only ...
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> This was looking forward to domU support, so that you already cater
>> for pdev->domain not being hardware_domain or dom_xen, but we might
>> want to leave that for later, when domU support is actually
>> introduced.
>
> ... I understood why this checking doesn't apply to DomU-s as well,
> in your opinion.
Or did you mean that to go inside the if() your patch adds (and hence
my patch won't need to add anymore)? I didn't think you did, because
then it would rather be
ASSERT(d == hardware_domain || d == dom_xen)
imo.
Jan
