From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:42:22 +0800 Message-ID: <55A468FE.1020100@intel.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1436420047-25356-16-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55A3DC29020000780009037A@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A3DC29020000780009037A@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Yang Zhang , Kevin Tian , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> + { >> + printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX >> + " cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u" >> + " with shared RMRR for Dom%d.\n", >> + seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn), >> + d->domain_id); >> + return -EPERM; >> + } >> + } > > Two if()-s like these should be folded into one. > > In your place I'd also consider also printing the RMRR base address > for easier analysis of the issue. > I agree but I think the whole range info should be better, " with shared RMRR [%"PRIx64",%"PRIx64"] for Dom%d.\n", Thanks Tiejun