Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] xen/arm: Enable the existing x86 virtual PCI support for ARM.

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 15.10.2021 12:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bertrand Marquis writes ("Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] xen/arm: Enable the existing x86 
> virtual PCI support for ARM."):
>>> On 15 Oct 2021, at 09:00, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The latter is fine to be put here (i.e. FTAOD I'm fine with it
>>> staying here). For the former I even question its original placement
>>> in asm-x86/pci.h: It's not generally correct as per the PCI spec, as
>>> the bus portion of the address can be anywhere from 1 to 8 bits. And
>>> in fact there is a reason why this macro was/is used in only a
>>> single place, but not e.g. in x86'es handling of physical MCFG. It
>>> is merely an implementation choice in vPCI that the entire segment 0
>>> has a linear address range covering all 256 buses. Hence I think
>>> this wants to move to xen/vpci.h and then perhaps also be named
>>> VPCI_ECAM_BDF().
>>
>> On previous version it was request to renamed this to ECAM and agreed
>> to put is here. Now you want me to rename it to VPCI and move it again.
>> I would like to have a confirmation that this is ok and the final move if 
>> possible.
>>
>> @Roger can you confirm this is what is wanted ?
> 
> I think Roger is not available today I'm afraid.
> 
> Bertrand, can you give me a link to the comment from Roger ?
> Assuming that it says what I think it will say:
> 
> I think the best thing to do will be to leave the name as it was in
> the most recent version of your series.  I don't think it makes sense
> to block this patch over a naming disagreement.  And it would be best
> to minimise unnecessary churn.
> 
> I would be happy to release-ack a name change (perhaps proposed bo Jan
> or Roger) supposing that that is the ultimate maintainer consensus.
> 
> Jan, would that approach be OK with you ?

Well, yes, if a subsequent name change is okay, then I could live with
that. I'd still find it odd to rename a function immediately after it
already got renamed. As expressed elsewhere, I suspect in his request
Roger did not pay attention to a use of the function in non-ECAM code.

Jan