From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>,
Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
Rahul Singh <Rahul.Singh@arm.com>,
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: fold pci_get_pdev{,_by_domain}()
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:41:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <014bd92f-c2ad-820c-7dcd-5ec8cdcd6bf4@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5b11f7b9-7264-0797-0aa5-20a988a04bc8@citrix.com>
On 11.08.2022 17:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 14:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.08.2022 15:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2022 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>>> @@ -2162,7 +2162,7 @@ int map_domain_pirq(
>>>> if ( !cpu_has_apic )
>>>> goto done;
>>>>
>>>> - pdev = pci_get_pdev_by_domain(d, msi->seg, msi->bus, msi->devfn);
>>>> + pdev = pci_get_pdev(d, PCI_SBDF(msi->seg, msi->bus, msi->devfn));
>>> Oh, I should really have read this patch before trying to do the sbdf
>>> conversion in patch 1.
>>>
>>> However, it occurs to me that this:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
>>> index 117379318f2c..6f0ab845017c 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
>>> @@ -59,9 +59,14 @@
>>> #define FIX_MSIX_MAX_PAGES 512
>>>
>>> struct msi_info {
>>> - u16 seg;
>>> - u8 bus;
>>> - u8 devfn;
>>> + union {
>>> + struct {
>>> + u8 devfn;
>>> + u8 bus;
>>> + u16 seg;
>>> + };
>>> + pci_sbdf_t sbdf;
>>> + };
>>> int irq;
>>> int entry_nr;
>>> uint64_t table_base;
>>>
>>> will simplify several hunks in this patch, because you can just pass
>>> msi->sbdf rather than reconstructing it by reversing 32 bits worth of
>>> data from their in-memory representation.
>> No, I'm strictly against introducing a 2nd instance of such aliasing
>> (we already have one in struct pci_dev, and that's bad enough). There
>> could be _only_ an "sbdf" field here, yes, but that'll have knock-on
>> effects elsewhere, so wants to be a separate change. And there are far
>> more places where imo we'll want to use pci_sbdf_t.
>
> What's the likelihood of getting to that before 4.17 goes out?
Well, I can try to get to making a patch tomorrow, just in time to meet
the submission deadline. But that's not really a promise ...
Jan
> I'd prefer to see it fixed, and obviously even more conversion to sbdf_t
> is better.
>
> Basically, I'm happy for the conversion to not be in this patch, as long
> it's not going to get forgotten.
>
> ~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-11 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-11 10:50 [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: re-work pci_get_pdev() and friends Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 10:51 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI: simplify (and thus correct) pci_get_pdev{,_by_domain}() Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 13:11 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-08-11 13:21 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 16:15 ` Rahul Singh
2022-08-11 10:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: fold pci_get_pdev{,_by_domain}() Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 13:21 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-08-11 13:26 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 15:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-08-11 15:41 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2022-08-11 16:17 ` Rahul Singh
2022-08-11 10:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: bring pci_get_real_pdev() in line with pci_get_pdev() Jan Beulich
2022-08-11 13:28 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-08-11 16:16 ` Rahul Singh
2022-08-11 16:37 ` [PATCH] x86/msi: Switch msi_info to using pci_sbdf_t Andrew Cooper
2022-08-12 6:45 ` Jan Beulich
2022-08-12 10:22 ` Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=014bd92f-c2ad-820c-7dcd-5ec8cdcd6bf4@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=Rahul.Singh@arm.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=paul@xen.org \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.