Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] VT-d: fix VF of RC integrated PF matched to wrong VT-d unit

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.07.17 at 09:56, <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How about changing the second paragraph to:
> 
> If a PF is an extended function, the BDF of a traditional function
> within the same device should be used to search VT-d unit. Otherwise,
> the real BDF of PF should be used. According PCI-e spec, an extended
> function is a function within an ARI device and Function Number > 7.
> But the original code only checks the latter requirement, without
> checking the former requirement. It incurs that a function whose Function
> Number > 7 but which isn't within an ARI device (such as RC integrated
> function with Function Number > 7) is wrongly classified to an extended
> function and then we wrongly use 0 as 'devfn' to search VT-d unit for this
> case.

There's one part here which I continue to not understand: The
function number being just 3 bits, how can it possibly be larger
than 7?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel