Re: [PATCH 2/2] vpci: use named rangeset for BARs

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.11.2021 11:50, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22.11.21 12:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.11.2021 11:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:28:25AM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
>>>> @@ -206,12 +206,16 @@ static void defer_map(struct domain *d, struct 
>>>> pci_dev *pdev,
>>>>   static int modify_bars(const struct pci_dev *pdev, uint16_t cmd, bool 
>>>> rom_only)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct vpci_header *header = &pdev->vpci->header;
>>>> -    struct rangeset *mem = rangeset_new(NULL, NULL, 0);
>>>> +    struct rangeset *mem;
>>>> +    char str[32];
>>>>       struct pci_dev *tmp, *dev = NULL;
>>>>       const struct vpci_msix *msix = pdev->vpci->msix;
>>>>       unsigned int i;
>>>>       int rc;
>>>>   
>>>> +    snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%pp", &pdev->sbdf);
>>>> +    mem = rangeset_new(NULL, str, RANGESETF_no_print);
>>> You are still not adding the rangeset to the domain list, as the first
>>> parameter passed here in NULL instead of a domain struct.
>>>
>>> Given the current short living of the rangesets I'm not sure it makes
>>> much sense to link them to the domain ATM, but I guess this is kind of
>>> a preparatory change as other patches you have will have the
>>> rangesets permanent as long as the device is assigned to a domain.
>>>
>>> Likely the above reasoning (or the appropriate one) should be added to
>>> the commit message.
> If I fold then there is no reason to add the comment, right?

I'd say you still want to justify the change from "anonymous" to "named and
accounted".

Jan