[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH 07/13] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:37:35 +0800
- Cc: tim@xxxxxxx, kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 11 May 2015 08:37:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Sorry for this delay response.
On 2015/4/20 21:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.04.15 at 11:21, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1793,8 +1793,14 @@ static void iommu_set_pgd(struct domain *d)
hd->arch.pgd_maddr = pagetable_get_paddr(pagetable_from_mfn(pgd_mfn));
}
+/*
+ * In some cases, e.g. add a device to hwdomain, and remove a device from
+ * user domain, 'try' is fine enough since this is always safe to hwdomain.
+ */
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_DEFAULT XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_TRY
Then why invent this one instead of just using ..._TRY at the respective
call sites.
I just want to own one place to guarantee this behavior if we want to
change something...
But now I can use XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_TRY directly.
@@ -1851,7 +1857,14 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d,
bool_t map,
if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) )
{
if ( (err = set_identity_p2m_entry(d, base_pfn, p2m_access_rw)) )
- return err;
+ {
+ if ( flag == XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_TRY )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "Some devices may work failed
.\n");
+ }
Iirc someone else already pointed out that this message needs to
change to something understandable. Perhaps it should also log
the PFN causing the error. And the braces here should be dropped
(if you inverted the condition you wouldn't even need an "else"; or
wait - this shouldn't be just "else", as you shouldn't imply anything
other than ..._TRY means ..._FORCE, albeit the respective check
perhaps belongs in the generic IOMMU code, not here).
I guess we already achieved this agreement in other thread with
discussion involved with you and Tim.
--- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
@@ -493,6 +493,10 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_domctl_sendtrigger_t);
/* XEN_DOMCTL_deassign_device */
struct xen_domctl_assign_device {
uint32_t machine_sbdf; /* machine PCI ID of assigned device */
+ /* IN */
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_TRY 0
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_PCIDEV_RDM_FORCE 1
+ uint32_t sbdf_flag; /* flag of assigned device */
Why do you call this "sbdf_flag" - it holds nothing SBDF-like.
I can remove 'sbdf_' to make sure this is not confused.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
